NJ Family Legal Blog : New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Alimony, Child Support, Child Custody, Prenuptial Agreements, Essex, Morris, Mercer, Atlantic

Earlier this year, we blogged about  of our colleague, Aaron Weems' post on our firm's Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, which advised that any recommendations by a parent coordinator would be given a de novo review by a court.  A de novo review means that the Court is taking a completely fresh look at the issue and is not obligated to make or accept the same conclusions, interpretations, or issue the same Order as the prior level did (in this case, the Parent Coordinator); their job is to look at all of the information as though it is brand new to everyone and reach a decision based on the evidence presented.

This week, Aaron posted a piece entitled New Rule: No Parent Coordinators Allowed on that blog.  Aaron advises that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted a new rule that stated:

Only judges may make decisions in child custody cases. Masters and hearing officers may make recommendations to the court. Courts shall not appoint any other individual to make decisions or recommendations or alter a custody order in child custody cases. Any order appointing a parenting coordinator shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective (Editor’s Note: May 23, 2013)....

Aaron noted that this ended the quasi-judicial role of parent coordinators.  He also wondered whether this would result in increased enforcement and modification proceedings. 

As I noted when commenting on Aaron's prior post regarding the de novo review:

Isn't that was it supposed to happen in NJ? Under the now defunct Parent Coordination Pilot Program which we have blogged on many times in the past, recommendations of a parent coordinator, if accepted, were to immediately become a court order. However, either of both parties objected, either or both could bring the matter to the court for review. That said, it really wasn't a de novo review because the court would have the recommendation made by the parent coordinator. All too often, thought the judge is not supposed to defer to the parent coordinator, this is exactly what happened, 

So bravo to Pennsylvania for requiring a true de novo review, where judicial authority is not abdicated to a third party and evidence is actually considered. On the other hand, a malevolent party will object to every recommendation, totally vitiating the purpose of a parent coordinator in the first place, and causing the other party to incur fees, first for the parent coordination and then for the inevitable subsequent litigation.

As I blogged previously, New Jersey, while ending the pilot program, does not preclude the appointment of parent coordinators.  If courts defer blindly to the recommendations of parent coordinators, without thoroughly reviewing the issues, will New Jersey be next to totally bar their use? 

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Picture this - two spouses in a matrimonial dispute.  The husband (or former husband) files a motion to reduce his alimony.  In support of that motion, the husband files a certification, under oath, telling his side of the story about how he lost his job, has a disability, or whatever reason it is that has caused his down income.  On the flip side, the wife files her response to the husband's motion, with a certification of her own, telling her side of the story about the husband is still living lavishly, is lying to the court, and is simply doing what he has to do to reduce his payment obligation to her.  Not surprisingly, the two versions of events could not be more diametrically opposed.

 

In that scene, what is the trial judge supposed to do?  Is he just supposed to take the husband's word for it that he can no longer earn what he did before and that his entire financial picture merits a reduction of his support?  Is he supposed to believe the wife's response, about how her former husband is simply just a bad guy who refuses to pay that to which he agreed or was ordered.

 

Generally - but, of course - not always, a trial judge is not supposed to resolve the question of credibility, or who is telling the truth, simply by reading the papers submitted by each party.  When there is a dispute of fact, the judge is supposed to then order a hearing, during which time he will take testimony from the parties and then determine who is credible/truthful.  Ordering a hearing, though, does not happen in every case, as almost every case will inevitably involve some dispute of fact, to some degree.  If the judge ordered a hearing in each instance, the family part would be even more flooded than they already are. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I blogged about the illusory "final offer", noting that most cases settle.  The reason for that is that there is a realm of reason, a range if you will, where cases with similar facts and circumstances, should resolve themselves based upon experience, statutes, case law, Guidelines, etc.  In most cases, absent wide valuation disparities, esoteric issues, bona fide custody disputes, including relocation, and/or really unique sets of facts and circumstances, the range is a relatively small one.  These are not personal injury cases where a carrier is offering $0 and the plaintiff is seeking millions. 

 

What do you do when you get a settlement proposal that is so out of left field that it borders on , or perhaps is, bad faith?  Do you ignore it?  Do you respond with an equally outlandish proposal in the other direction?  Or do you respond with a proposal in the realm of reason?

Maybe you don't really want to do that.  Why?  Because, as noted in my last post, you will be going to an Early Settlement Panel (ESP), mediation, and/or an Intensive Settlement Conference (ISC).  The risk of negotiating with a reasonable position vs. the other side's unreasonable position is that the impartial may suggest "splitting the difference."  Splitting the difference may be fair when both party's proposals are within the reasonable range.  It clearly is not fair when one party's proposal is outlandish.  Moreover, even if the unreasonable negotiator comes down substantially, perhaps even more than you come up (or vice versa), you will suffer the wrath of their righteous indignation because they "gave more." 

 

Also, I previously posted about a mediator saying that he was creating "settlement anxiety" to try and move parties to get the case settled.  While this may be fair if parties are either equally reasonable or equally unreasonable, is it fair to try to push the reasonable one when the other party is unreasonable?  I think not. 

 

In a case that I settled this year, the first proposal from the other side was clearly punitive and clearly bad faith.  We chose not to respond and I advised the adversary as such.  He begged us for a counter proposal.  We decided to make one that, while not bad faith, was extremely aggressive in the other direction.  What happened next?  We started negotiating within the realm of reason and the case got settled.

 

I am not saying that that strategy will work in every case but it worked in that one, as I suspected it might.  Negotiations can be complicated.  Great thought should be given as to the strategy to employ based upon who you are dealing with and how they are negotiating. In an advertisement in a recent  Super Lawyers publication, a firm stated that they were known for "winning" divorce cases.  That is funny since few are tried and seldom is there a clear "winner."  You don't want to let the other side "win" a negotiation because they started with an absurd position and you felt compelled to negotiate on their terms.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com .

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is my final offer!!!  Don't you just love the ultimatum, the line in the sand, the threat of Armageddon if capitulation is not immediately at hand?  I sure do.  Is it because I love to go to trial?  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy trial but that is not the reason. 

 

Seldom does it mean that a reasonable counter proposal won't be considered it it doesn't materially alter the terms being discussed.  Usually it means that your are getting pretty close to a settlement so that the proclamation can alert you and your client that now may be the time to do a deal.  In a recent case that I just settled, almost comically, each side probably sent 5 "final offers." 

 

And why is a final offer seldom a final offer?  Because 99% of all cases settle.  Because the system is geared to promote settlement.  Because before you go to trial, you will go likely go to custody and parenting time mediation, an Early Settlement Panel (ESP), mandatory economic mediation (sometimes several sessions), and an Intensive Settlement Conference (ISC) with the judge, or many.  Often, your first trial date is not a real trial date, but rather another day to bring the parties (and perhaps experts too) in to try and cajole or finesse and strong arm a settlement.  Even on your real trial date, perhaps before and often during the breaks of a trial, the judge will encourage settlement and/or the circumstances of how the trial is going may encourage settlement. 

 

So keep giving us your "final offers."  Sometimes, our client will accept them.  Other times, we will make a counter offer and await your next final offer until one day, the case will be settled or tried to conclusion.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Some times, the most basic part of the case, discovery, can often be the most frustrating part.  In most cases, some amount of discovery is needed to do the due diligence necessary to bring a matter to its conclusion with some sense of comfort that the issues have been adequately addressed.  In complex cases, especially cases where there are businesses and other significant assets to value, the failure to complete discovery often stops a case in its tracks.  I have a few cases now where the business owner is simply stonewalling discovery. 

 

In your typical case, you may serve interrogatories (written questions to be answered under oath) and a document request.  Though per court rules, the responses are due in 60 and 45 days respectively, the rules are most often honored in the breach.  Is it right?  No.  But most people figure that they can get away with ignoring the rules because the deadlines to answer will be set at the first Case Management Conference.  And even when you complain that your discovery is now over due or due shortly, inevitably, the deadline is set for 60 days in the future, give or take.

 

Then what happens.  People ignore the new deadline.  When you finally get the discovery, you often get half-hearted, incomplete answers and some but usually not all of the documents requested.  While many banks and credit card companies let you go on line and print out a year or several years of past records, and certainly will provide them to you when you ask, most people don't ask and just send an incomplete production which only serves to delay the process and cost both people more money (they don't think about that when the complain that the process takes too long and costs too much).  They may offer to sign authorizations so that you can get the documents yourself.  More delay - more expense shifted to the other side. In response to the weak answers, sometimes you may serve a request for more specific answers, only to get more drivel, if you get a response at all.

 

This is the discovery dance.    Several months go by and basic information still isn't exchanged.  Sometimes it is so late in the game that a judge says you can't do any more discovery.  As we have blogged before, where someone has sandbagged a case, that argument shouldn't fly.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Seth R. Parker, Esq., an associate in our Family Law Practice Group, residence in the Roseland, New Jersey office. 

I was recently before a trial court judge that had mistakenly denied my motion for reconsideration of his pendente lite Order on the papers because I had filed my application more than twenty days after the entry of his Order. When I politely advised him that his Order was not a final judgment or order and therefore was not bound by the prescribed deadline because each and every clause of it contained the phrase, without prejudice,  he seemed frankly puzzled. I then provided him with a supplementary copy of R. 4:49-2, and an Amended Order was swiftly issued.

When I recently read the unpublished appellate decision in M.M. v. M.G., I began to realize how a failure to appreciate this distinction of what is a final order and what is not, can have grave and sometimes quirky consequences in the world of Family Law. In that case, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded a trial judge’s decision to deny a litigant a hearing when he learned that he may not have been the natural father of his presumed son.

M.G., or Matt as he is known in the decision, was married to M.M., known as Mary, in 1989. Two children were born of their marriage, Lance and Adam. The parties were divorced in 1999. In 2009, Matt was adroitly approached by a family friend, Neil (I presume Neil ceased to be one after he spoke with Matt), and told that he, and not Matt, was Lance’s real father. Neil provided Matt with a paternity test that confirmed his belief.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have done dozens of posts on this blog about alimony over the last 5 years.  Recent experiences have convinced me that it is time to get basics. Despite all of the cases that say that you can't use a formula (the rule of thumb we have discussed previously on this blog), more and more, people are espousing a blind adherence to the rule of thumb.  In one recent case with income of a few hundred thousand, an adversary told me that it was the maximum amount of alimony that I can get, despite the fact that it came no where close to meeting my client's already pared down budget.  In another case, where the income was a few million, one side was arguing that the rule of thumb was a minimum, as if there should be no consideration of any other factors.

Despite the calls for alimony reform and formulas, as we have said many times, courts deciding cases cannot use rules of thumb.  Even when they do, they can't tell you that they did.  Rather, they have to review the alimony factors set forth in the statute - remember them?  Here, they are again, from N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b):

(1) The actual need and ability of the parties to pay;

(2) The duration of the marriage or civil union;

(3) The age, physical and emotional health of the parties;

(4) The standard of living established in the marriage or civil union and the likelihood that each party can maintain a reasonably comparable standard of living;

(5) The earning capacities, educational levels, vocational skills, and employability of the parties;

(6) The length of absence from the job market of the party seeking maintenance;

(7) The parental responsibilities for the children;

(8) The time and expense necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment, the availability of the training and employment, and the opportunity for future acquisitions of capital assets and income;

(9) The history of the financial or non-financial contributions to the marriage or civil union by each party including contributions to the care and education of the children and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities;

(10) The equitable distribution of property ordered and any payouts on equitable distribution, directly or indirectly, out of current income, to the extent this consideration is reasonable, just and fair;

(11) The income available to either party through investment of any assets held by that party;

(12) The tax treatment and consequences to both parties of any alimony award, including the designation of all or a portion of the payment as a non-taxable payment; and

(13) Any other factors which the court may deem relevant.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Very often, we deal with cases where our client or his/her has compensation from employment that is more than just salary plus bonus. Rather, with all of the financial services companies, pharmaceutical companies and other corporations in this area, we see all sorts of different compensation structures, including stock options, restricted stock, RSUs, REUs, etc.  Moreover, when the employee is in management or higher up in the company, the types of deferred compensation and/or equity plans can get even more complex.  Further, by its very nature, deferred compensation is not realized as income immediately, but usually over several years, typically 3 to 5 years.  Often it vests in two ways.  On way is serial vesting - 100 options are granted which vest over 5 years - 20 per year.  Sometime there is cliff vesting which means that the options all vest in year 5.  When an employee has been with a company for several years, then often start to have deferred compensation vesting each year and possibly available for income.

The question often arises as to whether these deferred compensation vehicles are income, assets or both,  While the answer is not simple, it is not as complex as many make it out to be..

Typically, deferred compensation that was granted prior to the date of the Complaint for Divorce is treated as an asset and is subject to equitable distribution.  If the deferred compensation is vested, meaning it can be immediately cashed in, then quite often it is equally divided (though again, New Jersey is an equitable distribution state not an equal division stated so it is not an automatic that these assets will be equally divided - sometimes it just seems that way.)

If the deferred compensation is not vested and requires continued, post-divorce Complaint service in order for vesting to occur, that is where things get more difficult.  I have seen some simplistically argued that anything granted before the Complaint gets equally divided no matter when it vests.  More recently, I have seen a greater use of some type of calculation (coverture fraction) used to recognize the post-complaint service of that spouse.  Many believe this to be the fairer way of equitably dividing deferred compensation.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are many cases that say that the settlement of litigation ranks high in the public policy of this state,  As such, there are many cases that say that an agreement can be enforced, even if it is not reduced to a writing, if the major terms have been agreed to.  As my client learned in Brawer v. Brawer, the unexpressed intention not to be bound is irrelevant.  There is no place in the law for second thoughts where the parties have expressed their agreement.  In fact, in a case called Bistricer, the judge said:

… the proposition that a case is not settled until the last “i” is dotted and the last “t” is crossed on a written settlement agreement carries the germ of much mischief. A party could, in bad faith, waste the time of the court and the other litigant in protracted settlement negotiations, and then, after a “framework” has been established, wiggle out of that framework by creating a flood of new issues and questions.

Just as you can't wiggle out of a settlement, similarly, you cannot appeal a settlement.  This issue reared its head in the case of Courboin v. Courboin, an unreported (non-precedential) opinion decided on February 21, 2013.  In this case, after two days of trial, the parties settled and put their settlement on the record. The husband testified that he agreed to be bound.  As part of that settlement, the home was to be sold.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Most people are aware that a supporting spouse may be entitled to modify an alimony obligation upon a showing of “changed circumstances.” However, many people do not know that the “leg-work” that they have to do to set themselves up to succeed on such a Motion begins long before the parties ever go to Court, especially if a supporting spouse is asking for relief on the basis of a purported job loss or reduction in income.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of items that a Judge will look for when a supporting spouse is requesting to reduce his or her alimony obligations:

• Has the applicant proven that his/her circumstances have changed such that he/she would be entitled to a child support or alimony reduction - Common scenarios constituting changed circumstances include:
       o A reduction in a party's income;
       o Illness;
       o Retirement;
       o The receipt of an influx of liquid assets;
       o Cohabitation of the supported spouse.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several years ago, I posted a blog entitled "Some Times You Just Have to Try a Case."  In that post, I discussed that there are some times where a litigant simply refuses to settle making a trial inevitable.  Are there times, however, when a trial might be less costly, quicker and preferable to long, drawn out, and perhaps insufferable negotations.  I have dubbed these mind numbing, perhaps bad faith negotiations, where sometimes you take one step forward and two steps back and sometimes, no issue is ever resolved, and sometimes, you make an offer about alimony and the response is about equitable distribution - death by a thousand paper cuts.  Whether intentional or not, you wonder whether a trial would have just been bettter.

I ponder that after recently concluding a case that, while having one little twist, which we got past several months ago, then endured numerous mediation sessions, numerous Intensive Settlement Conferences at the Courthouse and even more than one scheduled uncontested hearing where even the final changes had final changes, plus new changes.  In fact, I have recently had several cases where it took an inordinate amount of mediation sessions to resolve simple cases.  In one reasonably simple case, the parties went to mediation 6 or 7 times, before attorneys attended and even then, it did not settle despite the outcome being obvious.  In another, after 9 mediation sessions (7 with lawyers present), the case remains unsettled though only small dollars in the big picture remain in dispute. 

In your garden variety case, the inordinately drawn out process only serves to either wear a party out and forces the righteous client to give up to either move on or stop the bleeding of legal fees.  Otherwise, they incur a large legal bill just to get to the place they should have been had the other side acted reasonably (presuming for the second that they have negotiated fairly and reasonably.)

While I understand the desire to avoid trial at all costs for all of the usual reasons - finality, having control of your own destiny as opposed to putting the decision in the hands of a stranger, etc.- if the process comes to a place where all things considered, you cannot do worse if you go to trial, maybe a party should consider pulling the plug on these expensive snails pace and/or bad faith drawn out negotiations,  Perhaps the threat, if it is a real threat and you actually start doing what is necessary to prepare for trial, will stop the nonsense and get the other side to end the case once and for all. 

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently I posted about questioning whether your own attorney knows what he is doing and, as part of that question, whether the attorney knows the law surrounding your divorce or related family law matter.  A related question worth discussion is whether you know and understand the law and how it impacts your case.

With busy schedules filled to the brim with jobs, childcare responsibilities, and other daily stressors, I do not want my clients to undertake the unnecessary burden of purchasing a family law textbook and learning its contents front to back.  I do, however, encourage my clients to at least become familiar with the main points of the law.  For instance, most clients seem to know the general principles of equitable distribution in New Jersey - i.e., most assets, under the law, are subject to a 50/50 distribution absent any other factors, credits, or details; most clients also know, and readily offer, his or her awareness of New Jersey's permanent alimony option. 

It was a recent incident that brought this issue to my attention.  During a first meeting with the parties and a custody expert in a very acrimonious matter, the expert asked one spouse whether her lawyers had explained to her the law of relocation.  She answered "no," despite relocation being one of the primary issues in the case and her desired result.  The expert then asked if her attorneys had made her aware of the Supreme Court of New Jersey's decision in Baures v. Lewis, and the Appellate Division's decision in O'Connor v. O'Connor, each of which are seminal cases on the issue of relocation.  The wife answered "no" to each.  Our client, by contrast, was aware of these cases because we took the time to advise him of the cases, and explain their underlying principles.  The expert then directed the wife to ask her attorneys to explain to her the law and those cases.

What is the lesson to be learned here?  If your client is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, litigating an issue, make sure that he or she understands the law.  If there is a lack of understanding, or lack of awareness, then how is he or she supposed to know whether their position is reasonable, whether it is worth litigating over, and whether to settle?  An informed client better knows the risks, perils, pitfalls, and chances of success, no matter what area of law is involved.  In family law, where the stakes are often higher and more emotional, it is even more critical. 

__________________________________________________

Robert Epstein is an associate in Fox Rothschild LLP's Family Law Practice Group. Robert practices in the firm's Roseland, New Jersey office and can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have posted on this blog before about how to choose the right attorney for you, as recently as Eric Solotoff's post of December 28th, but one related point worthy of discussion is whether your divorce lawyer actually knows what he or she is doing.  Seems easy enough, right?  Well, all too often a case may very well fall "off the rails" from both a time and cost standpoint because your lawyer may not know how to handle a divorce matter, despite what was indicated to you during your initial consult.

What are the potential pitfalls and perils of retaining a lawyer who does not have a strong grasp of family law and how to represent a client in such a matter?  There are many, but a few are notable for this blog entry:

Time Is Not On Your Side:  What may be a simple case drags on for what seems like years (or, in some cases, may actually be years), because your lawyer does not know how to bring such a case to conclusion.  This can cause fees to escalate unnecessarily.

Law?  I Don't Need No Stinkin' Law:  A lawyer who knows the law seems like a no brainer, but you would be surprised to know how many attorneys handling divorce matters do not actually know the applicable law, in even the most basic sense.  I recently experienced a trial judge having to pull out the Court Rules and point the other lawyer to the page of the Child Support Guidelines dealing with unreimbursed medical expenses because the lawyer was simply taking a position contrary to well known existing law.  Only after having this occur in front of her client, on the record, did the lawyer back down. 

Money, So They Say:  No one likes or wants to spend money on a divorce, but ultimately divorce lawyers provide a necessary service to clients, and are supposed to act zealously on a client's behalf to protect rights and interests under the law.  When your lawyer does not know what he is doing, the, perhaps, unintended impact of the representation will be higher counsel fee payments than you may have anticipated.  In a way, this ties into what I said above about bringing a case to a conclusion.  Having a lawyer who knows the law, and can appropriately act on your behalf based on a given set of circumstances will avoid additional fees that could have been avoided had that unnecessary motion not been filed, that unreasonable position not been taken, or that lengthy research on basic points of law not been performed. 

Don't Look Back in Anger:  Believe it or not, a lawyer who does not know what he is doing can increase acrimony between the parties.  As lawyers, we tend to let our clients know when we think that the other side is being unreasonable, or simply is leading the case off of the beaten path due to a lack of understanding as to what is happening, or how to move the case towards an end.  Clients also tend to have a strong grasp as to when this is happening, and the result is often added frustration or acrimony with the other party, who, in many cases, may believe that he or she is being properly represented.  With delays and increased counsel fees, the atmosphere surrounding the matter is only going to deteriorate with time.

Ultimately, choosing a qualified attorney requires a thorough and careful determination that the person can properly act on your behalf through what may be one of the more difficult times in your life.  This is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and I recommend that you review the steps in the prior entries on this blog to determine who is the right attorney for you. 

___________________________________

Robert Epstein is an associate in Fox Rothschild LLP's Family Law Practice Group. Robert practices in the firm's Roseland, New Jersey office and can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I sit here stewing on this overcast Friday because the other side reneged on the settlement in two matters, after we believed we were all but resolved in both.  Whether or not these were enforceable settlements is a topic for another blog.  That said, one is particularly frustrating because the other side essentially undid a package proposed by them a few mediation sessions ago which been discussed at a few mediation sessions, only to come back with a new proposal that was accepted by my client. 

The problem is that no one ever just says "my client changed his/her mind."  This would be a fine answer especially in situations where we have laid the ground rule that there is no deal until it is signed of by everyone.  Rather than truth, we get hit with lame, absurd, and/or intellectually dishonest explanations as to why there never was a deal in the first place, and/or why the back tracking (a nice way to say bad faith negotiations) was justified.

What are some of the "dog ate my homework" excuses we have heard.

• My client didn't really understand (Were you, the attorney not there?)"
• the mediation session was chaotic and ended abruptly (note - no denial that there was a deal)
• my client didn't believe that any agreements were reached that date (of course, the lawyer isn't saying that there were no agreements reached)
• "Oh, is that what we agreed to"
• My client never agreed to that
• We may be close on the big stuff (how is that when we accepted your offer on the "big stuff")
• My client was very emotional
• My client was hungry
• My client didn't take their medication or took too much medication

I am sure that my colleagues could add dozens more.  That said, if a non-binding settlement is reached, wouldn't it be just better to tell the truth - i.e. my client changed her mind - then create anger and bad feelings spewing nonsense to cover for the acceptable truth?  I'm just sayin ...

 _________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com. 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a continuation to last week’s post regarding what happens when trial courts fail to grant hearings to supporting spouses when they may be warranted, i.e. upon a showing of changed circumstances, this blog post will focus on those times where a hearing is deemed unnecessary based on the facts of a given case. This sometimes occurs in situations where an obligor is self-employed, has the ability to control his or her income, and is attempting to capitalize on the down economy in order to wriggle out of support obligations, sometimes only a few short years after the initial support award.

This type of issue was addressed at length in a prior blog post by Eric Solotoff, Esq. in the context of a discussion of Donnelly v. Donnelly where a self-employed attorney was denied a reduction to his alimony obligation two years following the entry of the Final Judgment of Divorce based on a purported downturn in his law practice. In these types of instances, trial courts have followed the mantra that where the supporting spouse owns his own businesses, the income of the self-employed obligor must be viewed “more expansively.”

For example, in the 2010 case of Pisciotti v. Pisciotti, the defendant-husband appealed from an Order denying his motion to reduce his alimony obligations and to pay child support. At the time of their divorce in 1999, the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (“PSA”) obligating the husband to pay $3,000 per month in alimony, as well as child support in the amount of $4,207.34 per month. Ten (10) years following the parties’ divorce, the husband filed a motion to reduce his support obligations, arguing that his income had substantially declined since the time of the divorce and that his assets, which included several heavily mortgaged properties, had decreased significantly in value. The husband also asserted that the fitness center business, in which he was a co-investor and employee, had suffered during the economic downturn, thereby diminishing his compensation therefrom. The husband supplied various materials in support of his motion, including an updated Case Information Statement, his certification, and personal tax returns. The former wife opposed the motion, arguing that the husband’s motion was not adequately supported, and therefore he had not established a prima facie change of circumstances.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this economy, you would be surprised to see how many judges are jaded by applications brought by supporting spouses to reduce their support obligations based upon a reduction in income. After all, some judges entertain these applications on their daily docket and oftentimes see supporting spouses who are simply attempting to capitalize on the down economy and lack any actual merit to their cases. This blog post will explore one of the reactions by judges to this type of application; namely, denying the request of the supporting spouse outright without even holding a hearing, taking testimony, and making credibility findings.

Support obligations are always modifiable by the family court upon application of the supporting spouse.  Typically, this type of application requires the supporting spouse to make a threshold prima facie showing that “changed circumstances have substantially impaired the ability to support himself or herself.” Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980). When such a showing is made, the Court must next determine if a plenary hearing is warranted. This is sometimes referred to as the two-step Lepis analysis.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On the heels of our New Years Resolution Divorce post, I thought it made sense to also resurrect our prior posts on preparing for the divorce process and how to select a divorce attorney. 

Previously, Sandra Fava, a contributor to this blog, did a piece on preparing for the initial divorce consultation with a lawyer. We also previously posted South Carolina matrimonial attorney, Mellisa Brown's article entitled "How to Find the Right Divorce Attorney for You."

The process, however, starts even before that. On our web site, we have an advice piece entitled Preparing for the Divorce Process.

Since it is linked to this post, I will not repeat everything contained in the piece. However, the topics contained in that piece are as follows:

• Speak to an attorney now, not later
• Selecting the right attorney (including how to get referrals for an attorney)
• Gathering documentation
• Preparing for the initial meeting
• Telling the truth
• Keeping a diary; and
• Trusting your attorney for legal advice (as opposed to friends, family members, co-workers, etc.)

Do I stay or do I go? This is not an easy question to answer. However, if you are even
contemplating a divorce, divorce planning (and not in the nefarious way that often goes with this phrase) is essential, especially in difficult economic times. Divorce can be a long, highly charged, expensive process - emotionally and economically. Being prepared and keeping
perspective, at least as much as humanly possible, can help you save time and legal fees
while protecting your and your children's interests.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the last few years, I have posted on the phenomenon of the New Year's Resolution Divorce. For whatever reason, this post has struck a chord and has been both well received and cited by other bloggers. As such, given that the new year is near, I thought I would share that piece again.

Over the years, I have noted that the number of new clients spikes a few times of the year, but most significantly right after the new year. Out of curiosity, I typed "New Years Resolution Divorce" into Google and got 540,000 results in .29 seconds. While not all of the search results were on point, many were extremely interesting. It turns out that my intuition about this topic was right and that there are several reasons for it.

One article on Salon.com put divorce up there with weight loss on New Years resolution lists. Also cited in this article was that affairs are often discovered around the holidays. Another article linked above attributed it to "new year, new life". Another article claimed that the holidays create a lot of pressures at the end of the year that combine to put stress on people in unhappy or weak relationships. Family, financial woes, etc. associated with the holidays add to the stress. Turning over a new leaf to start over and improve ones life was another reason given. This seems to be a logical explanation for a clearly difficult and perhaps heart wrenching decision.

In my experience, people with children often want to wait until after the holidays for the sake of the children. There is also the hope, perhaps overly optimistic, that the divorce will be completed by the beginning of the next school year. These people tend to be in the "improving ones life" camp.

So as divorce lawyers, we hope to avoid or at least resolve in advance the holiday visitation disputes that inevitably crop up, then relax and enjoy the holiday as we await the busy season to begin.

In the last 3 years, the phenomena started early for us and many other attorneys. We were contacted by more people in December in the last few years than in any years in recent memory. Moreover, we have heard of more people telling their spouse it "is over" before the holidays this year. I suspect that in some, it was the discovery/disclosure of a new significant other or perhaps pressure being exerted by that person that was the cause. In other cases, the person just didn't want to wait until the new year to advise their spouse. Whatever the reason, we await those who see 2013 as a chance for happiness or a fresh start. Happy New Year?!?!
_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How often, late in a case, do we realize that we don't have all of the discovery that we need?  Why does this happen?  Sometimes you are trying to settle a case and are holding off on full discovery (or any discovery at all for that matter).  Sometimes, the other side has been recalcitrant in producing discovery.  Sometimes you learn of new assets or issues that require discovery that you didn't know about earlier in the case.  There can be other reasons too. 

How often, late in a case, has a judge said you cannot have the discovery that you need?  Too often.  We always knew that it was wrong but here is a case, Dougherty v. Dougherty (unreported - non-precedential), decided on December 13, 2012, that arms us with some authority to cite so that we can get the discovery we need.

In this case, pre-trial, the trial judge only partially granted a discovery motion seeking certain critical retirement asset records.  At trial, the request for these records was made again.  As disposition of this asset was a central issue at trial, the lack of the critical records was problematic.

The Appellate Division reversed the pre-trial discovery order and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge abused her discretion in preventing the critical discovery.  The court noted:

"[O]ne of the essential purposes of a civil trial is the search for truth[.]" Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100, 117 (2005). "The trial court, not the parties, bears
the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the fairness of the proceedings." Ibid. The rules governing discovery procedures are designed to assure these fundamental concepts remain true. Gone are the days when a trial turns on the quality of counsel's obfuscation of facts held solely by one party. The benefit of pre-trial discovery exchange aids the administration of justice and a fair determination of the issues.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton (Chester County), Pennsylvania office and former editor of our Pennsylvania Family Law Blog wrote an interesting post entitled "Elements of Expense: How Employers Help to Make Your Life Expensive & Your Lawyer Bewildered".

In his post, Mark ruminates on the difficulty in deciphering the modern pay stub.  Mark notes that over the years we have evolved from a time and place where compensation consisted of salary and a bonus to one where a paystub reads like the Dresden Codex (an anthology of Mayan astronomical tables).  In fact, the piece emanated from him having just devoted more than half an hour to reading and interpreting two paystubs that included salary, commission, vacation time, etc. as well as more than $100,000 of payments under the titles: ECC Disc Incentive; Long Term Cash Vest; RS Unit Vesting; and RSS Vesting.

Of course, once a you get past the alphabet soup of categories of income and withholdings, next you have to figure out what to do with them. For instance, you have to make a decision as to whether this is really income, an asset or both. This often comes into play with regard to bonuses and the exercise of deferred compensation. Is it recurring or non-recurring?  Is it an anomalous, one time payment?  Does this reflect an undisclosed change in how and/or the amount of someones compensation. What year should it be attached to, e.g. a bonus paid in 2012 for 2011 (do you just look at income received in the calendar year or do you add the salary received in a calendar year to the bonus for that year paid in the first quarter of the next year?) 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

More often than not, clients or potential clients come to us stating that they want to resolve things amicably.  It is probably one in 100 who say they want to fight to the end.  That said, "amicable" is in the eyes of the beholder and it may take some time, and maybe even some litigation, to get to that "amicable" result we know happens most of the time since, statistically, 98% of all divorce cases settle. 

A problem could occur if the other side believes that you will avoid the conflict at all costs and will not litigate, if needed.  Often, the dynamic in the marriage is that one side always backs down.  In fact, I was in a mediation recently where the other spouse was convinced that my client would back down and held firm to his unreasonable proposal, because "she always backs down." 

Moreover, just as there are clients that avoid conflict and will not litigate, even if it is to their detriment, there are lawyers out there, despite the fact that matrimonial law is a litigation practice, who will not try a case.  Now, I learned as a young lawyer that the best way to be able to settle a case is to be prepared to try the case.  Others may not have learned that lesson.

The reputation that someone wont try a case gets out there fast and spreads like wildfire.  What does the other side do in those cases, or in cases where they know that the other spouse will fold?  They wait them out and perhaps even threaten trial.  Why?  Because they know that someone will roll over or that the trial averse lawyer will strongly suggest that the unfair settlement be accepted, etc. 

While sometimes, you may take a little less or pay a little more to avoid the cost and risk of trial.  On the other end, there are probably few situations where rolling over simply to avoid a conflict is worth it.

__________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, I did a blog entitled Putting a Stop to Threatening, Bad Faith Negotiations.  In that same case, what preceded the threats, were bad faith diversions or refusals to provide even the most basic of information necessary to settle the case - in this case, "how much are you going to earn this year?" 

Alternating with the vagueness and misinformation about income ("confusing" gross with net to make the income seem smaller") was an outright refusal to address the issues we were discussing.  I get it - the guy doesn't want to pay alimony.  Who does?  But alimony was a real issue in the case and the real issue that will make or break any settlement. Every time we tried to focus on the alimony issue, the adversary came back without a response on alimony, but raising an irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things), red herring side issue.  This happened time after time. 

After a few times, we ended the discussions for the day.  I am not saying that we wont address the issues raised, if they are truly an issue.  But just like the threats, these smoke screens were raised as a tactic to divert from the main issue, perhaps to wear down my client or otherwise confuse the issues. 

At the end of the day, you have to keep returning the negotiations to the central issues.  Otherwise, you are simply wasting time and allowing the bad faith negotiator use tactics to gain an advantageous settlement.  Stay strong and stay the course.  Don't allow the negotiations to be hijacked by nonsense.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, I was involved in a negotiation that seemed, for the first time, to be moving in the right direction. However, at one point when it was getting toward the end of the negotiation, the next counter proposal started, "you have to get rid of your dogs and sell the house ..."

I did not need to hear more because that was a threat, not a real proposal. Implicit in the statement was "if you don't capitulate to my unreasonable demand, I am going to try to take away that which is no important to you."

Recognizing that this was simply a threat, I put a stop to things (to put it nicely). In these situations, when someone resorts to threats or other illegitimate tactics, consider pulling the plug on the discussion or at least make it clear that you will.  You will be surprised how often that corrects the negotiation and returns it to where it should be. 

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nearly everyone who has a judge rule against them thinks that the judge got it wrong.  Why litigate if you didn't think you were right?  Judges are human and some times they actually do get it wrong.  In those cases it is easy to get their decisions reversed, right?  After all, that's why we have a Appellate Division, right?

Right and wrong.  That is why we have an Appellate Division.  That said, given the standards of review in family court matters (and in all appellate matters in general), if you were betting, you should bet on the house because more cases are affirmed then reversed.  Other cases are remanded, not necessarily because the judge got it wrong, but because she/he did not provide sufficient fact finding in the decision to allow for appellate review.

I have rarely seen the standards of review set forth so cogently then in the unreported (non-precedential) case of Schleiffer v. Schleiffer released on December 6, 2012, citing the recent reported case of Milne v. Goldenberg (previously discussed on this blog).

The standards on appeal, we noted was follows:

In Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184, 197-98 (App. Div. 2012) we recently restated our commitment to the principle that the work of the Family Part will not be disturbed absent compelling circumstances:

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is not a perfect world we live and and few of us are perfect and free from vices.  There is, however, a difference between imperfections and either addiction and/or mental illness that could impair a person's ability to parent their children.  Often, when these issues arise, we try to build safeguards into agreements to protect the children where there is a history of alcoholism, drug abuse or significant mental illness.

These are always tricky cases because the infirm party often (1) is in denial or at least downplays the severity of the issue, (2) doesn't want their problem in writing in a written agreement; (3) there is no agreement as to whether there even is a problem; etc. As such, there are times that we do our best with agreements to put as much teeth as possible into agreements to avoid the cost of trial, not over the actual parenting time, but the protections to be put in place when someone falls off the wagon.  With compromise, however, comes the chance, not necessarily of actual risk to the children (thought that certainly is possible too) but the possibility of putting the kids in danger and being left to fix a problem after damage has been done.

The title of this post is came to me after reading the Y.A.B. v. A.C.B. unreported Appellate Division decision released on November 28, 2012.  In that case, despite evidence that he former husband, who had acknowledged alcohol issues, may have been drinking  (private investigator reports showing him buying alcohol, Facebook pictures of him holding a beer and a Certification from an ex-girlfriend regarding the husband's alcohol use), and protective language in the agreement, not only was his parenting time not meaningfully curtailed, but the ex-wife was seriously chastised for bringing her application.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, Judge Grant, the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, announced that effective November 26, 2012, the Parenting Coordinator Pilot Program would be ending. The notice further provides that judges may still appoint parenting coordinators (PCs) and even provides model, but not mandatory, Orders for the their appointment. 

To those who oppose the use parenting coordinators, they may see this announcement as a victory of sorts.  However, I would not start jumping for joy, right away.  The good thing about the pilot program is that there were at least published guidelines approved by the New Jersey Supreme Court that could be followed.  In fact, as I wrote on this blog in September of this year we learned from the Milne v. Goldenberg reported decision that even in non-pilot program counties, if a PC was appointed, the Pilot Program guidelines had to be followed.  Query how this provision of the Milne case jibes with the above announcement but only time will tell.

If the Guidelines don't apply, are we going to return to a wild west environment like we had before the Guidelines?  In fact, I blogged about the pre-Guidelines madness all the way back in 2008.  As I noted then, over the years, judges began to make numerous appointments to attempt to, if not rid the courts, at least create a buffer for parenting and visitation issues that arose daily/weekly/monthly in high conflict divorce and post-divorce matters. Sometimes the professional was called a parent coordinator, other times it was a therapeutic monitor, a mediator, a parenting coach, etc. The role was generally the same, that is, to present these issues to a neutral third party that had either a legal or mental health background, or both, to assist the parties work out the differences and in many instances, make recommendations if they could not. 

The problem was that there was no uniformity to what this person, whatever they were called, could do.  Even Pre-Milne but post-Guidelines, I had cases where parent coordinators in non-Pilot Program counties were vested with incredible powers bordering on, if not crossing the line of the abdication of judicial authority, which is not supposed to happen.

Only time will tell whether the role of parent coordinator will go the way of the dinosaurs or go back to the free for all that existed pre-Guidelines.  Until then, we watch and hope that the dissolution of the Guidelines will not make things worse, instead of better.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently wrote a blog entitled "Sloppy Drafting of Marital Settlement Agreements Can Cause Great Harm, Usually to Only One of the Parties."   I am reminded why I wrote that post because as I read the new cases decided each day, it fortifies my belief that settlements must be clearly reduced to writing and that every effort should be made so that the document can only be interpreted in one possible way. I say this because as I read these cases and see the results based upon interpretations of agreements, I think that this could not be what the parties really intended.  

Specifically, two cases decided in the last two days jumped out at me and left me thinking "I see what the agreement says, but that really cannot be what the parties' meant."

In Schaefer v. Kamery, an unreported (non-precedential) case decided on November 19, 2012, the holding of the trial court, that limited duration alimony continue even after the recipient remarried was upheld.  How can that be you ask since there is a statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:34-25) that says alimony terminates on remarriage?  How can that be you ask because you know that there is case law that says that rehabilitative alimony many continue after remarriage, because the rehabilitation plan is goal oriented (i.e. to get someone back in the workforce or improve their earning ability), which goal exists irrespective or remarriage.

The reason that alimony did not terminate on remarriage in this case is that the Property Settlement Agreement contained the following language:

Payment of alimony shall cease only upon the first to occur of: (1) the
expiration of the alimony term set forth above; (2) Husband's death; or (3) Wife's
death. The parties agree Wife’s involuntary termination from her current employer or
permanent disability preventing her continued employment shall be a changed
circumstance justifying review of Wife’s alimony obligation. No change in Husband's
circumstances other than death shall constitute a changed circumstance affecting Husband's right to alimony.

Part of the rationale for denying the motion was the aforementioned language and the fact that there may have been other interrelated financial terms.  Not also, the payor previously sought and was denied modification based upon cohabitation.  In fact, the current motion was the third motion to modify.

Having the benefit of 50-50 hindsight, unless someone was trying to pull a fast one and was planning on filing the motion because they knew that the support recipient was in a relationship, the better practice might have been to specifically say that remarriage and/or cohabitation would not impact the alimony, especially if there was not a real meeting of the minds on this issue.  Doing so may have saved the legal fees for 3 motions and an appeal.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In our effort to provide the reader of this blog all of the serious (ahem) family law news we can find, a top source for family law news, the New York Daily news provided some fodder for this blog this weekend.  While I suspect some of you are waiting for us to discuss the Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez break-up, the story at issue is not that one, but the one involving a woman in England who divorced her husband because he wouldn't play Fifty Shades of Grey.

In this case, it was reported that the woman, a successful banker earning $600,000 per year alleged that her attempt to jump start their love life with author E.L. James’s provocative novel backfired when her husband accused her of “unreasonable behavior.”  The husband allegedly blamed the breakdown of their marriage on that book.

Whether or not this book is causing similar marital distress, or perhaps the opposite, in New Jersey is unknown.  Since most divorce Complaints in New Jersey are filed citing irreconcilable differences, a no-fault ground, we don't hear the same level of the detail regarding why a couple is divorcing.  This was not the case 7-8 years ago and before, when irreconcilable differences was not available and most cases proceeded on the fault ground of "extreme cruelty."  Back in those days, parties had to allegedly prove the reasons why the conduct of the other made it unreasonable and improper to require them to continue to live together as husband and wife.  Now courts really did not care what was really in the Complaint and the only testimony at a final hearing was testimony that the allegations in the Complaint were true.  That said, depending on how angry people were, you could get a few short paragraphs, or you could get an Encyclopedia Britannica of allegations. 

Since it was largely irrelevant, only served to raise and more costly and time consuming than an irreconcilable differences Complaint, the system is better for us not having to file cruelty complaints in most cases (we may still file them if custody is an issue and/or there is a tort claim being filed too).  That said, from a lawyer's perspective, the cruelty complaints and counterclaims often afforded you, early on, to learn the true dynamic of the relationship in a way that better enabled you to strategize and otherwise help your client. Still and all, divorcing your spouse for not acting out what is in a book is a new one for me.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Litigants who are displeased with the outcome of a judicial decision can rest assured that there exist multiple avenues by which a review of the decision may occur – mainly, in the form of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.  This post focuses on the reconsideration route, which, despite the large number such motions that are filed, is actually supposed to be quite strict in its application. 

As a matter of common sense and an effort to avoid an even worse judicial calendar backlog than that which currently exists, reconsideration applications are not simply a way for the unhappy litigant to get another “bite of the apple”.   More often than not, however, it seems that reconsideration applications are exactly that –a way for the dissatisfied party to be heard again on the same issues with the hope that the trial judge will simply change his or her mind. 

Rule 4:49-2, which applies to reconsideration motions, does not provide much by way of direction.  Rather, it focuses largely on the deadline for filing.  It states:

 

Except as otherwise provided by R. 1:13-1 (clerical errors) a motion for rehearing or reconsideration seeking to alter or amend a judgment or order shall be served not later than 20 days after service of the judgment or order upon all parties by the party obtaining it.  The motion shall state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred, and shall have annexed thereto a copy of the judgment or order sought to be reconsidered and a copy of the court’s corresponding written opinion, if any.  

 

Various cases have fleshed out what constitutes a sufficient basis for reconsideration:

• The court’s decision is based on plainly incorrect reasoning;
• The court failed to consider evidence;
• There is good reason for it to reconsider new information that was not available at the time of the prior judgment/order; 
• By correlation, the motion may not be based on facts known by the moving party prior to the entry of the judgment or order; and
• The motion may not simply be an effort by the moving party to reargue the motion and expand the record – the motion is not an opportunity for the previously losing party to attempt a second “bite of the apple”.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week, I was told by an adversary that her client was taking what clearly is an unrealistic position as to custody and parenting time, "on principle."  I have another matter where a spouse is delaying the matter on principle, because he doesn't want his spouse to move on with the new significant other.  I tried a case earlier this year, clearly over principle, because the wife wanted permanent alimony in a marriage that clearly warranted a term of years and over her demand for 50% of the value of his medical practice, when a lesser percentage was appropriate.  Another client wanted us to file a motion, on principle, over a minor violation of a parenting time agreement during the hurricane.  In another case, a party is seeking virtually all of the equity in the marital home, clearly on principle, though the law would not suggest she is entitled to anything more than 50% under the facts. 

All of these recent examples remind me of a blog post that I did in 2009 entitled "Musings on Principle vs. Litigation."  The examples, however, suggest at least two different classes of standing on principle.  In the first, someone has a meritorious claim or position, but the cost of litigation exceeds the amount at issue, and/or though right, they are fighting a fight that they don't need to fight, just to win.  As I recently told a family member who was getting divorced, sometimes it is very expensive to be right. 

The second class of "principle" is the crazy principle where you think you are right, but you really aren't right.  Not only that, you aren't listening to your lawyers, mediators, settlement panelists, judges, friends, etc. who are telling you that your position isn't right.  Rather, these people are embarking on a holy crusade, either to punish the other party or for some other improper reason.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Robert A. Epstein, an associate in our Family Law Group resident in the Roseland, New Jersey office, authored the article, Imputing Income to a Non-Working Spouse During the Pendente Lite Period: A Violation of the Status Quo or a Practical Step Toward the Reasonably Comparable Lifestyle?, for the November 2012 edition of The New Jersey Family Lawyer. The article highlights the fact that the outcome of pendente lite support determinations in divorce proceedings can have a long-lasting impact on the court’s view of the case, the tenor of an ongoing matter, and the prospects of settlement.

 

Additionally, Lauren E. Koster, an associate in our Family Law Group resident in the Princeton, New Jersey office, co-authored the article,Navigating a Partnership K-1: The Untold Line Items and What They Really Mean, also for the November 2012 edition of The New Jersey Family Lawyer. Koster, and her co-author, Leonard M. Friedman, CPA/ABV CBA, Partner at Rosenberg Rich Baker Berman & Company in Somerset, New Jersey, argue that while a K-1 provides valuable insight about a particular business and how much a person may, in fact, be truly earning, it should also be noted that navigating your way through a K-1 can be a daunting task for those family law practitioners who are not familiar with the document.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

All too often I hear from clients about how they should end up with a specific result in their case because their friends went through divorces of their own and ended up with that desired result, or something similar.  I can certainly sympathize with a client who want to talk to their loved ones and other people who have gone through what they are going through to not only make sure that they are getting a fair result, but also for the simple purpose of comfort during a stressful time.  

It is critical, however, for each litigant to understand that every case is different and rests on its own facts and circumstances.  Each set of parties are also different from case to case, and as a result, each outcome is different.  It is always important that a client understands this to be the case as we explain to them the divorce process, what the law is and how it is applied, and what reasonable expectation he or she should have as to how the results received by others.

For instance, I learned from another contributor to this blog that whenever a client asks how long their case is going to take, the answer is generally "it depends."  It depends on you.  It depends on your spouse.  It depends on the facts of your case.  While matrimonial attorneys often have a preliminary sense as to what alimony or equitable distribution may be based on prior experience, no one can look into the future to see exactly what will happen.  Most clients want the divorce process to be as short and amicable as possible, and, from what they have seen or heard, expect only the longest and most acrimonious divorce imaginable.  Thus, from the very start the client must be made aware that the length and outcome of a case depends, in large part upon the parties themselves.

There is, perhaps, no better example of when this occurs than with the issue of alimony.  This is likely because it is generally a "hot button" issue, especially in New Jersey where alimony reform has been the subject of extensive recent discussion and attempted legislative change.  Also, unlike child support, which is generally based on the formulaic child support guidelines (unless further analysis is required where the parties' collective net incomes exceed the guidelines' limit), and unlike equitable distribution, which is generally a 50/50 split of marital assets (except with the distribution of the marital interest in a business), alimony is, perhaps, subject to greater shades of gray.

One of the first questions that I am always asked when it comes to alimony is for how long the alimony will be.  The question is then usually followed by the client stating how long the marriage was and what their understanding is from other people as to when permanent alimony comes into play.  Interestingly, while the length of the marriage is certainly an important factor, litigants often seem to treat it like the only factor, despite the alimony statute listing no less than fifteen factors for consideration. 

While there are certainly some predictors and practices to help advise a client in determining what alimony may be, there is no set of alimony guidelines or formula for calculation.  Rather, there are the factors I reference above, each of which is applied to the specific facts of a given case.  Thus, while the comfort afforded to a client in speaking with their loved ones is a strong draw, we as matrimonial attorneys must instill in them the notion that no result will ever be the same (nor should it be), especially in the context of settlement, where there is commonly a give-and-take between the issues of alimony and equitable distribution.  

Thus, while getting by with a little help from friends is often essential to providing comfort, advice, and compassion in a time of need, it is the matrimonial attorney who possesses the level of expertise upon which clients rely to take them through the divorce process and achieve a desired result under the circumstances of their specific case.  

 _________

Robert Epstein is an associate in Fox Rothschild LLP's Family Law Practice Group.  Robert practices in the firm's Roseland, New Jersey office and can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reading and considering Eric Solotoff’s blog from earlier this week regarding the benefits of settlement, it is also critical to know when to settle and, quite frankly, whether to settle at all. This especially applies to those current or former spouses who simply cannot afford to litigate against a financially superior former spouse. This situation is often referred to as litigating on an "uneven playing field."

Trying to some degree to place myself in your shoes, it can only be an extremely difficult decision whether to, once again, go up against the other party with the bottomless wallet, or just settle for what they want and get it over with. These decisions may not only have an impact on your own wallet, but also on your family's overall well being, especially if children are involved. Too often, the other party knows this to be the case, which is why they will continue to file or threaten to file motions in the hope that you will eventually "give in" under the pressure.

This blog should not be taken as a sign of encouragement to litigate a case, but rather as a cautionary note for what you, as a litigant, may be sacrificing with your decision. Ultimately, it is you who has to wake up in the morning and be comfortable with your decision, which is why having all information at your disposal is, perhaps, the most important part of the decision-making process. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Melissa Brown, an attorney in Charleston, South Carolina, is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and one of the preeminent family lawyers in South Carolina. I had the occasion, last week, to read her excellent article on her blog entitled "Be Careful When Using Technology to Gather Evidence."  Melissa has graciously allowed us to re-post her post. Her article is as follows:

The world of technology changes at break neck speed. Just in the past year, Apple released its third generationiPad and seven months later it is introducing the fourth generation  iPad, new iPad Mini and the iPhone 5. Even Apple fans hardly have time to familiarize themselves with a new toy before another is introduced. The new technology is available even before contracts run on the previous models.

Most people today are not as concerned about keeping up with the Jones's as they are with keeping up with the Steve Jobs's. The problem in the legal field is that while lawyers struggle to keep up with latest and greatest technological advances, the laws addressing the use, misuse and abuse of such technology are also ever-evolving. However, the laws are not evolving at nearly the pace of technology growth. The result is that obtaining evidence through the use of technology can become dangerous both to clients and attorneys.

No one can be completely sure how old laws will apply to new technology particularly technology that few could fathom or contemplate when the laws were enacted. Lawyers and judges struggle to apply general principals of law to situations never imagined. While there are some hard and fast rules, much of this area of law remains murky and uncertain. Clients may believe their "smoking gun" e-mail will win their case, but, if a court later decides that the client obtained the e-mail illegally, the court will exclude that evidence entirely. Even worse, the client and the attorney offering the illegally obtained evidence might face civil and criminal liability for even attempting to admit such material.

In a much-publicized Ohio case, an ex-wife, Catherine Zang is currently suing her ex-husband, Joseph Zang, and his attorney, Mary Jill Donovan, for wiretapping and invasion of privacy. Catherine Zang claims her ex-husband installed monitoring devices in their home and spied on her with a hidden video camera and microphone. She alleges that he installed these secret cameras to gain leverage during their divorce proceedings. Under the federal wiretapping laws, a person may not intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications, and, under many state's laws,unless one of the parties in the conversation is aware of the recording, the recording is illegal. This means that in so called "one party" states like South Carolina, a husband is allowed to tape his wife's conversation only if he is also a party to the 'conversation. Joseph Zang under Ohio law was probably not allowed to record his wife;s conversations that were not with him, as he allegedly did. He and his lawyer are facing civil penalties up to $10,000 per taping, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. They could also be charged criminally and be fined up $250,000 and serve up to five years in jail.

The reality is that using technology to gather evidence for potential use in during litigation is likely dangerous for both clients and their attorneys. Most technologically savvy attorneys implement electronic evidence policies that require their clients to disclose how they obtained electronic evidence before ever discussing the substance of the evidence. Such policies are designed to protect both the client and the attorney from exposure to criminal and civil liabilities.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Inflation impacts everyone, right?  As a result, one would think that alimony would routinely be subject to cost of living adjustments (COLA). In fact, we know that Rule 5:6B of the New Jersey Rules of Court states that "(a)ll orders and judgments that include child support entered, modified, or enforced on or after [the effective date of this rule] September 1, 1998 shall provide that the child support amount will be adjusted every two years to reflect the cost of living."  So if child support is subject to biennial COLA increases, alimony is similarly increased, right?  Wrong!

I have been practicing  for more than 20 years and have rarely, if ever, seen COLA clauses related to alimony in marital settlement agreements.  That said, I have also rarely seen decisions that discuss this issue until this week when the Appellate Division released the unreported (non-precedential) opinion in Eberhard v. Eberhard on November 2, 2012. 

In this case, the trial court increased alimony with little rationale provided for the increase other than plaintiff's increased cost of living. In reversing, the Appellate Division noted:

In this matter, we first note the motion judge erred as a matter of law because an increase in the cost of living unaccompanied by a demonstrated need will not satisfy a movant's burden to show the necessary substantial change in economic circumstances to warrant modification of alimony.  (Emphasis added)

So there you have it.  But doesn't the same change of circumstances standard apply to modifications of child support?  Why do we presume, by Rule, that the cost of living for children increases, yet the cost of living for the dependent spouse does not?  Of course, doesn't the payor of both child support and alimony have to face rising costs of living too?  Can we intellectually justify this?  That all said, perhaps the better practice would be to simply negotiate for COLA increases for alimony in divorce agreements.  Of course, the other side will push back and can now cite to this case as the reason why.

 _________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When settling a case, the parties and their lawyers can be far more creative in settlement then a judge can be if the case is tried.  While family judges have wide discretion in their decision making, creativity is crafting the most beneficial result for both parties is rarely something they can do.  In fact, in many ways, they are constrained from the type of creativity that we see every day in divorce agreements. 

What if you are a high earner, but your income fluctuates greatly from year to year?  While a judge will likely have no choice but to determine your average income over 3 to 5 years and base support upon that as well as the rest of the statutory factors, you may want to agree on some kind of formula so that there is fairness year over year, i.e. you pay more in a better year and less in a down year. For example, if your average income is $2,500,000 but your income fluctuates between $1 million and $4 million per year.  You would really hate paying alimony in those years you only make $1 million.  If a judge decided this case using averages, you might be forced to pay your entire net income, or more, to you ex spouse in the down year.  Similarly, a judge could never say that support "automatically" is reduced or even reviewed if your income is less than $X in the future. 

This concept was reiterated again by the Appellate Division on October 29, 2012 in an unreported  (non-precedential) decision in the case of Means v. Snipes.  In this case, after a trial, the judge decided that in the event that defendant's annual income fell below $2 million, he would receive a reduction in alimony. This is the one thing that both parties agreed was in error - a rare agreement in a very contentious case.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a perfect world, marital settlement agreements (MSAs a/k/a Property Settlement Agreements) are crystal clear and cover every possible contingency under the sun (I say this as when first drafting this post, I was being contacted frantically by a client regarding custody provisions in the event of school closure because of hurricane.)  That perfect world rarely exists for many reasons, including the main reason that most cases would never settle and/or the cost would be outlandish if every possible contingency is contemplated and negotiated.  That said, we do our best to address to the most germane and likely issues.

If the document cannot cover every possible thing under the sun, at least the final document should be clear and include the parties' actual meeting of the minds on the included issues.  Sadly, this does not always happen either.  Sometimes, the parties meeting of the minds is really not a meeting of the minds - that is, they each believe that the settlement is something else but the language of the agreement is vague or imprecise enough where they both think that they are right.  Some people actually do this on purpose to keep an argument on a "hot button" issue alive for the future.  Other times, it is simply inartful, to put it kindly, or down right bad drafting that causes future problems.

If a party can convince a court that the terms of the agreement represent a mutual mistake, perhaps there is some relief and the agreement can be re-formed.  That said, more often then not, one of the parties gets really hurt by virtue of the poor drafting. 

This appears to be what happened in the case of Rozier v. Byrd, an unreported (non-precedential) opinion released by the Appellate Division on October 26, 2012.  In this case, either someone was trying to be cute and the law of unintended consequences jumped up to bite him, or he was the apparent victim of a poorly drafted agreement.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An issue that has vexed us in the past is whether the rules enacted by the Supreme Court regarding parent coordinators were to be applied to all parent coordinators appointed by the Court.  In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court implemented a pilot program in four vicinages (Bergen, Morris/Sussex, Union and Middlesex) for parenting coordinators.  The link above provides the Supreme Court mandated guidelines and procedures which have also been discussed on this blog previously.

The problem arose when a parenting coordinator was appointed outside of one of those vicinages.  To my chagrin, I have heard judges state and lawyers argue that since their vicinage was outside of the pilot program, they did not have to follow the guidelines.  This was often in the context of a court improperly vesting a parent coordinator with authority which approached or could be argued to be an abdication of the judicial role. 

Finally, we have an answer to this question in the reported (precedential) case of Milne v. Goldenberg decided on September 12, 2012.  The case seems like a never ending, "war of the roses" type custody battle and also has some interesting discussion regarding the role of a Guardian ad Litem and procedures related thereto.  That said, the parent coordinate issue was addressed because the court appointed an attorney who was not on the court approved, pilot program parenting coordinator list. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Simkin v. Blank case in New York has been a frequent topic on this blog.  It was game over for Mr. Simkin today when the NY Court of Appeals ruled that this Madoff victim could not revise his divorce deal.

 We first wrote when the case was filed.  In this case, in June 2006, the parties agreed to evenly split the $5.4 million in an account they had with Madoff Securities. As a result, the husband gave the wife $2.7 million in cash, and retained the account. As a result of the alleged Madoff Ponzi scheme that has essentially rendered the account worthless, the husband filed suit seeking the $2.7 million that he paid the wife. The husband alleges that because the account turned out to be valueless, the spirit of the agreement was broken.

We next wrote when the trial court first ruled, dismissing the matter.   I even participated in a podcast about this ruling. Acting New York State Supreme Court acting Justice Saralee Evans decided that the husband is stuck with his decision to keep the account instead of withdrawing his money before the December 2008 collapse of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The Justice noted that while the husband claimed the Madoff account held no assets, he did not allege it had no value. Key to the decision was that in 2006 and "the several years after that plaintiff maintained this investment," the account "could have been redeemed for cash, presumably significantly in excess of its 2004 value." In addition, the Justice held that "An investor's ability to redeem an account for value, was the assumption on which the parties relied in dividing their property and in doing so they made no mistake."

The next installment was about the Appellate Division's decision which reversed the trial court decision and reinstated the Complaint.  The Appellate Court found that dismissal was improper and the husband had the right to try to pursue both the issues of mutual mistake (i.e. there never really was an account) and that the wife was unjustly enriched. In coming to its decision, the majority of the court held:

The dissent states: “[a]t the time of the agreement, Steven had an account in his name with [Madoff].” Untrue. Steven never had an account in his name with Madoff; on Madoff's own admission there were no accounts within which trades were made on behalf of investors.

The dissent then states, “Steven liquidated part of the account to fund his payments to Laura.” Untrue. In Madoff's Ponzi scheme what appeared to Steven and Laura to be a partial liquidation of an account was simply a payment to Steven that came from funds deposited by a more recent “investor” in what the “investor” believed was his own account.

The dissent further observes, “[Steven] did not liquidate the rest of the Madoff account ... and he continued to invest in it.” Untrue. There was no account which could be liquidated, as became apparent when Madoff received $7 billion worth of “liquidation” calls from investors in 2008. Nor was Steven “investing” in an account; his further contributions went directly to pay other “investors” in the scheme.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While it doesn't happen in every case, from time to time there is a request made by a client or opposing counsel to tape the meeting between the opposing expert.  This happens more frequently in contested custody cases, but it could happen as to any expert, I suppose.  The general rule seemingly had been that these sessions can be taped (with notice - not surreptitiously).  Why do people want to do this?  Some people are not trusting.  Others want to make sure that they are not misquoted in an experts report.  Some even do this if an expert is known to ask leading types of questions suggesting a response that may then be used against the party being interviewed.

A question recently arose as to whether the experts can be compelled to tape all interviews, not only of the one party, but of the children too.  In a reported (precedential) trial court opinion in the case of Koch v. Koch which was decided last year but approved for publication last week, the judge refused to allow all interviews to be taped.  Specifically, the court concluded that concludes that a party has the right to record his or her own interviews with a psychologist or psychiatrist, but does not have the right to compel the other party’s expert to record interviews of the other party or the parties’ children.

As to the general rule noted above, the judge here was not so sure and the opinion included a threshold discussion as to whether expert interviews in a custody case could be taped since the case that lawyers generally relied on involved the taping of a session with a psychologist in a civil litigation.  Notwithstanding the conclusion, the judge noted:

Accordingly, a custody evaluation is an expert report where the court expects, and is
assisted by, the independent professional judgment of a licensed mental health expert.  Requiring recordings could undermine the very purpose of the evaluation. If the children know that they are being recorded, and know that their parents are in a custody dispute, the children might be less candid for fear that their parents will hear what they say to the evaluator. Such recordings effectively bring the parents into the children’s interviews and could distort the information needed to prepare an accurate and balanced evaluation.

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Parties often like - well no one really likes to pay alimony - to use alimony as a vehicle to settle issues in a case because usually, alimony is deductible to the payor and includible in the income of the recipient.  Because of differences in tax brackets, proper structuring of alimony can create additional cash flow for the recipient and additional tax relief for the payor. 

There are times, however, when alimony is paid in a lump sum. Sometimes an alimony obligation is bought out - prepaid if you will (though for the payor, one wonders whether this is a good deal because the recipient can go out and get married the very next day whereas alimony terminates upon remarriage typically (as well as death).  Other times, people make a business decision to front load some of the alimony so that the monthly payments in the future are reduced.

However, lump sum alimony cannot be deducted nor is it includible in income.  Because of this, consideration should be given to what the lump sum should be by perhaps tax effecting the number so that the recipient does not get the full amount, up front, without having to pay taxes on it.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Melissa Brown, an attorney in Charleston, South Carolina, is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and one of the preeminent family lawyers in South Carolina.  I had the occasion, last week, to read her excellent article on her blog entitled "How to Find the Right Divorce Attorney for You."  Melissa has graciously allowed us to re-post her post.  Her article is as follows: 

When your marriage is falling apart and a divorce is imminent, it is critical to find a skilled, experienced, competent family law attorney to represent your interests. With a little bit of legwork and some patience, you can find a highly experienced divorce attorney who is the “right fit” for you. The following three simple steps outline a basic approach to put your case in the hands of the right attorney.

Step 1: Ask Your Friends for Attorney Referrals
Begin by asking your divorced friends, family members, and trusted coworkers for their thoughts about the attorneys who represented them – and the attorney who represented their ex-spouse.

Do not simply ask “Did you like your attorney?” Dig a little deeper. Be specific. Ask questions such as:

• After your experience what is the most important quality to have in a divorce attorney?

• What did you like the most/least about your attorney?

• Did you feel the attorney listened to you?

• Did you feel your attorney advocated for you?

• What was your opinion about the opposing attorney? (Surprisingly, it is not uncommon for one to have high regard for the opposing side’s attorney. Asking detailed questions about the opposing counsel’s performance can be enlightening.)

• Did your legal fees reflect the value and quality of the legal services that you received?

Pay attention to others’ responses. Take note of which attorneys’ work was valued and appreciated by their clients and which attorneys were a disappointment. Make a list of the attorneys whose work was appreciated and respected because these are the attorneys with whom you need to meet, interview and consider retaining.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

April 17, 2012 is the 2011 tax filing deadline and it's quickly approaching. The Government does not care that you are going through potentially the most difficult time period in your life. Like the Godfather, the IRS wants its money. It does not want to hear excuses. It does not want to hear that you always filed jointly and now your soon-to-be ex-spouse will not sign the joint return, or provide their W-2, or disclose the income of the closely held business because they fear it will be used against them in the divorce process.

Filing your taxes can be difficult, especially if you owe money. Trying to file when going through a divorce can be especially difficult. That is why it is important to work with your attorney and a tax professional. There are many decisions to make when filing taxes during a divorce. First, you have to determine your filing status: married filing jointly, married filing separately, or head of household. If you decide to file jointly, make sure to be extra diligent. If your spouse prepares the returns, have your own tax professional review them to ensure that they are accurate. The IRS does not care that your spouse prepared or filed the taxes. If you sign the return, you can be held liable for misreporting.

If you decide to file married filing separately or head of household (if you qualify), the following determinations have to be made (and in some instances negotiated):

1. Who gets the mortgage interest deduction(s) and other itemized deductions?

2. Who gets to claim the child(ren)?

3. Can I deduct the temporary support?

4. Can I deduct my legal expenses for the temporary support?

5. Who gets to claim the Child Tax credit and the Household and Dependent Care credit?

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Having just experienced several months of "interesting", to say the least, negotiations on several matters, it got me thinking about creating a list of things to do if you really don't want to settle your case.  Hey, every body is entitled to their day in court if they want it. So what if there is nothing that can be gained from it.  So what if you can't win.  So what if forcing the matter to trial will create other legal issues.  So what if trial will cost tens of thousand of dollars.  Here is the list:

10.  Ignore your expert's advice.  What do they really know about the value of your business or how a judge will likely assess your total income/cash flow?  What does an accountant know about taxes, or more importantly, how the IRS may address the creative accounting practices that you or your business have employed?  What does the custody expert really know? 

9.  Ignore your lawyer's advice.  What do they know anyway?  If your lawyer is telling you that you should jump at the deal on the table because it looks like a huge win, disregard it.  If they tell you that you have real exposure on certain issues or may be forced to pay your spouses legal fees, roll the dice. If your attorney tells you that they are willing to try your case, but that you should consider settlement because the cost of the settlement will be less than the cost of the trial plus the absolute minimum you have to pay, don't believe it.  And what does your lawyer know about the law or the judge anyway?

8.  Ignore the facts of your case.  Trust your ability to spin the facts in a way that doesn't make sense.  Plus, how can they prove if you're lying.

7.   Ignore what the neutrals are saying.  What do the Early Settlement Panelists know?  What does the mediator know?  When the judge has a settlement conference and gives directions, what does she/he know?  Assume that the people that have no "horse in the race" are aligned with your spouse or their attorney, have been bought off, or are just plain ignorant.  Really, it has nothing to do with the facts of your case or the reasonableness of your position.

6.  Ignore the law.  It doesn't apply to you anyway.

5.  Continue to misrepresent things, even when the other side has documents to disprove virtually everything you are saying.  Assume that you will be deemed more credible than the documents.

4.   Believe that the imbalance of power that existed during the marriage will allow you to bully your spouse into an unfair settlement.  Assume that your spouse's attorney wont try protect her/him.  All lawyers roll over on their clients, right?

3.   Take the position that you would rather pay your lawyer than your spouse. Ignore that fact that this tactic usually ends with your doing both, and maybe your spouse's lawyer too.

2.  Pretend as if your spouse never spent a second with the kids in the past and has no right to do so in the future.  Make false allegations of neglect or abuse.  Ignore the social science research that says that it is typically in the children's best interests to spend as much time as possible with each parent.  What do the experts know about your kids anyway?  And while you are at it, bad mouth your spouse to or in front of the kids. Better yet, alienate them.  Then fight attempts to fix the relationship.

1.   Take totally unreasonable positions implementing any or all of above and on top of that, negotiate backwards.  Ignore the maxim "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."  Put deals on the table and then reduce what you are offering.  Negotiate in bad faith.  Negotiate backwards.  Don't worry that this conduct may set your case back.

The above is clearly facetious and tongue in cheek. I do not recommend this behavior.  It is usually self destructive and short sighted.  But, believe it or not, these things happen all of the time.  While I am not saying that no case should ever be tried, because sometimes trials are necessary, if you want to ensure a costly trial that may not go well for you, try the things on this list.  And if it is your day in court that you want, be careful you wish for.

_________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For whatever reason, it is not unusual for a Marital Settlement Agreement and/or Custody Agreement to have a mediation clause in it which requires parties to go to mediation before bringing an issue to the Court by way or motion.  For some issues, like enforcement, one questions the obligation to go to mediation.  Either someone violated the agreement or they didn't.  Other issues require a more swift decision and mediation could only slow the resolution down, especially for the party who might benefit from the delay.  And while we see these clauses all of the time, I have also seen many judges ignore the clause and adjudicate the dispute. 

This, however, is not what happened in the Decilveo n/k/a Woolf v. Decilveo case decided today by the Appellate Division in an unreported (non-precedential) opinion.  In this case, the parties divorce agreement stated:

In the event that any differences arise out of the interpretation, construction or
operation of this Agreement, the parties further specifically agree as follows:

(a) They shall first attempt in good faith to resolve such differences amicably and directly with each other, retaining the right to seek advice of counsel;

(b) If they are unable to resolve any dispute between themselves or with the assistance of counsel, or through mediation, either side may submit same to a Court of competent jurisdiction for resolution.

Arguably, this provision does not appear to specifically apply to enforcement or modification, two major parts of this litigation but the trial judge interpreted the agreement broadly, forcing the parties to mediation to address their numerous disputes. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Friday, I blogged on the judicial estoppel aspect of the Romano case decided last week by the Appellate Division. While that was the major issue in that case, there was another part of the case that jumped out at me, when I read this line related to the court's valuation of the husband's business and calculation:

John also maintains that Judge Becker should not have accepted Dana's expert testimony with regard to the value of his business and the income it generates. John did not provide sufficient reliable information to allow Dana's expert to use valuation techniques based on tax reporting, so the expert was forced to consider the family expenses as a means to gauge the income generated by the business.

This scenario is not uncommon in divorce matters where a sole proprietor provides neither complete business records nor reliable Internal Revenue Service filings. We defer to Judge Becker’s fact-findings concerning the value of the business and its revenue.  (Emphasis added).

Unfortunately, when dealing in cases with small (and some times not so small) businesses, this is a common occurrence.  Often, it becomes a game of "tell me how much you can find and I tell you how much I have."   In this case, the non-owner has the laboring oar to try to reconstruct the exact income.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have all seen and heard those familiar words in the title of this entry in moves or on TV.  This is part of the "Miranda" warning administered by a police officer when they are arresting someone.  Do these words also have a place in divorce court?  Not in the same way, but in reality they do.

Other than settlement communications, attorney/client and other privileged communications, everything else is just about fair game.  That is why Facebook, emails and texts have become such a treasure trove in divorce cases as people freely put things in writing that they might not otherwise say, and perhaps even broadcast it to the world.

But what about what you say in another court in another case?  Can that be used against you?  Sure can.  The concept is called judicial estoppel, and it was on display again yesterday in the unreported (non-precedential) decision from the Appellate Division in Romano v. Romano.

Without getting in to all of the details of this case, the relevant details relating to judicial estoppel are as follows,  On the wife's name was on the deed of the marital home, a finding made by a judge during a domestic violence trial, despite the husband claiming he was on the deed.  Thereafter, the husband filed for bankruptcy relief.  In that filing, he answered "none" on the part of petition asking if he had a legal or equitable interest in any real property.  In the later divorce case, he listed the aforementioned home as a marital home subject to equitable distribution. 

The trial judge awarded the home to the wife based on the husband's representation to the bankruptcy court that he had no interest in the property.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The substantial weight placed on every parents’ entitlement to have their child bear their surname is paramount in the law of New Jersey, and codified by statute. N.J.A.C. 8:2-1.4.

Where both parents cannot agree upon a surname for a child at the time of a child’s birth, both parents have the legal right to provide a surname for the child, with the child’s name being alphabetically hyphenated to reflect the name chosen by both parents. N.J.A.C. 8:2-1.4(a)(2). Deference will only be afforded to the parent with custody of the child in the event the other parent is “unavailable” at the time of the child’s birth. N.J.A.C. 8:2-1.4(a)(1).

But what happens where the “unavailable” parent has been unduly deprived of his right to attend the birth of his child due to the biological mother’s failure to notify the parent of the existence (or birth date) of his child?   This author suggests that where a parent was involuntarily unavailable at the time of his child’s birth as a proximate result of the biological mother’s wrongful actions, said parent must not be deemed “unavailable” for purposes of depriving that parent his right to name his child. Both equity and logic follow this proposition. Had the “unavailable” parent been appropriately advised by the biological mother as to his parental status (or properly notified as to the birth date of the child), he would have had the opportunity to attend his child’s birth and to provide his child with a surname to be hyphenated alphabetically with the surname chosen by the biological mother. Surely, the intent of the law was not to reward a mother’s deception by granting her sole authority to provide a surname for the child, while simultaneously punishing the unknowingly absent parent by denying him his legal right to have his child bear his name. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Melissa Brown, an attorney in Charleston, South Carolina, is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and one of the preeminent family lawyers in South Carolina.  I had the occasion, last week, to read her excellent article on her blog entitled "Jurists & Lawyers Ignorant of Social Media Can Unintentionally Harm Litigant's and Clients."  I thought that the article was so good that I asked Melissa if I could re-post it as a guest blog on this blog, and she graciously agreed.  Her article is as follows: 

In a lengthy opinion following a discovery motion in a personal injury case, Judge Richard Walsh of Franklin County, Pennsylvania ordered Plaintiff to disclose her login information for her Facebook account. Defense counsel had argued that Plaintiff had previously posted photographs and comments about her going to the gym and enjoying activities that she had previously testified under oath that she could no longer do as a result of the accident.

Apparently, at some point in the past, Plaintiff’s Facebook profile was “public” and accessible by defense counsel. On that basis, the judge granted defense counsel unfettered access to Plaintiff’s Facebook account. The judge wrote in a footnote, “The Court does not hold that discovery of a party’s social networking information is available as a matter of course. Rather, there must be a good faith basis that discovery will lead to relevant information. Here, that has occurred because Jennifer Largent’s profile was formerly public. In other cases, it might be advisable to submit interrogatories and requests for production of documents to find out if any relevant information exists on a person’s online social networking profiles.” However, despite the footnote commentary, Judge Walsh ruled that Plaintiff has to give over her username and password for her Facebook account thereby granting defense counsel access to Plaintiff’s messages and chats that are never “public” or accessible except to the individual to whom such messages are sent. In addition, by allowing unfettered access to Plaintiff’s account, Judge Walsh’s ignored his own observations that defense counsel was only entitled to information that could lead to discoverable evidence. One has to wonder if Judge Walsh understood the overly broad nature of his order and if Plaintiff’s attorney tried to protect his client by arguing that such ruling was overly broad and intrusive.

This author only has access to the court’s order and knows nothing else about this case. However, it seems clear that Judge Walsh is unfamiliar with the multiple functionalities of Facebook. One wonders if he knew he was granting access to chat logs and private messages in addition to “publicly” posted information. One also wonders if Plaintiff’s own attorney possessed enough information about the various components of Facebook to object to the Court’s ruling as overly broad or to offer less intrusive remedies to permit access to properly discoverable information while still protecting his client’s private (and irrelevant) information.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is not unusual to use a three or five year average of someones income when calculating alimony and/or child support if their income fluctuates.  Why does income fluctuate?  Sometimes people earn commissions based upon sales which vary from year to year.  Sometimes the economy or other reasons dictate how much of a bonus they get.  Some times deferred compensation, when it vests and/or is cashed in, yields more in some years than in others.  There are many reasons why income can fluctuate.  As such, both the case law and child support guidelines advise that we should use an average when calculating support.

That said, is this always fair?  What do you do in cases where it is clear that the prior income wont be repeated?  That was the issue in the case of Harwelik v. Harwelik, an unreported Appellate Division opinion decided on December 19, 2011.  In this case, the husband's average income was about $300,000.  However, this included both short term bonuses that he was able to defer and long term bonuses that had a 3 year vesting period.  In July 2006, when the husband's employer, Verizon, sold most of its international assets, his title was downgraded from director to manager. As a result of the change, he was no longer eligible to receive long-term bonuses, although the bonuses previously
granted would still vest and be fully payable. In addition, as a manager, plaintiff could no longer defer the short-term bonuses he received after 2006.  When excluding this deferred compensation from the average income, it was substantially less.  That said, the trial court used the $300,000 average.

In a confusing opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of an average but reversed the use of the $300,000 number because it included the deferred compensation that the husband no longer had, through no fault of his own.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A little more than a year ago, we blogged on the reported Appellate Division Case, Tannen v. Tannen, which addressed the issue of trusts in the context of family law cases.  Relatedly, we blogged on the impact of income from a discretionary trust and whether it reduced a party's need.

In Tannen, the trial court, relying on the newest version of the Restatement of Trusts, required the trustee of a discretionary trust to make distributions to the beneficiary of the trust. Though the trust assets earned significant income, there was no requirement in the trust document for the distribution of the income to the beneficiary. 

The Appellate Division reversed, holding that by applying existing law, which has incorporated various provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, Wendy’s beneficial interest in the Wendy Tannen Trust was not an “asset held by” her for purposes of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b)(11) of the alimony statute. As  such, the panel determined that no income from the Wendy Tannen Trust should have been imputed to Wendy in determining Mark’s alimony obligation. Addressing the trial court's reliance on the newest Restatement, the Appellate Division noted:

[a]s a court of intermediate appellate jurisdiction, we do not presume to adopt the Restatement . . . as the law of this state and apply its provisions to the facts of this case. Given the significance of its principles in the context of [the New Jersey statute dealing with the power of a court to impute income to a party in a divorce action), such determination would be more appropriately made by our Supreme Court.

As a result, as practitioners, we all awaited the Supreme Court's decision on this expecting that they would tell us one way or the other whether trial court's rationale would become the law of this state.  Doing so might have weakened the sanctity of trusts, but might have been consistent with the jurisprudence of this State that is typically deferential to and supportive of the support recipient for public policy reasons. 

The Supreme Court decided - drum roll please - :The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed,
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Messano’s opinion of the Appellate Division reported at 416 N.J. Super.248 (2010)."  This one sentence opinion is an anticlimactic end to what could have been a very interesting discussion of an important legal issue.  Because Judge Messano deferred to the Supreme Court on a policy issue, as a student of the law, it would have been interesting to hear our high court explain their rationale given the limitations that the Appellate Division expressed in their opinion.

_______________________________________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501 or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

 



 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have recently had a case where the other attorney would tell us one thing on the phone and another to the Court or in Court papers.  When called on this about face in court, the attorney made a weak denial before saying that it does not matter what he said and that it only matters what his client believes.  In this situation, the assertion was curious, if not comical, because at issue was the interpretation of a court order.

That said, was opposing counsel right?  I think that, in most cases, the answer is no.  More importantly, there is a sufficient body of law that what a lawyer says could possibly bind a client.  Of equal significance, if counsel relies on the representation of opposing counsel, only for opposing counsel to backtrack or lie about making the representation, the case will no doubt get more contentious, if not more expensive.  In addition, thereafter, perhaps all communications will have to be in writing so that there can be no backtracking, etc. Moreover, this type of conduct raises ethical concerns regarding duties of candor to the court and duties of fairness to the opposing party, to name a few.

Some situations where an attorney can bind a client are as follows.  If an attorney has authority to settle and makes a proposal or accepts an offer on behalf of a client, it may be possible to enforce that agreement.  If an attorney takes a position in court, the client may very well be stuck with that position. 

I have had situations where attorneys have made factual misrepresentations to a judge on the record at a motion or conference with the client sitting right next to them.  In these situations, I have ordered the transcript for use at trial.  During cross examination, I have asked the other party, if they were present, if they heard what was said, and if they concede it was incorrect.  I then ask them to confirm that they were sitting there yet they never corrected the misrepresentation that they knew was wrong.  In several trials, I have seen judges cite this to justify the finding that the party lacked credibility.

Family law cases are hard enough and emotionally charged enough that what we don't need is sharp and dishonest practices by the lawyers.  While bad for the system in general, this conduct also risks hurting their client's case.

_______________________________________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501 or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Trials in divorce matters are kind of like the Loch Ness monster - lots of people of heard of it, but few have actually seen it.  The system is currently set up such that there are many vehicles to get people to a settlement.  Moreover, most cases should be settled.  In fact, as I have blogged in the past, the cases that often get tried are ones where one, if not both parties, are totally unreasonable and unrealistic. As noted in prior blogs,there are, however, bona fide cases that cannot be settled and must be tried.

Many judges have a pre-trial Order or letter citing requirements of things that must be done before trial.  One of the things often on the list is that counsel are supposed to confer to to see if the can reach any stipulations as to facts, and sometimes legal issues.  Court's have noted that "stipulations serve as a tool that enables parties to avoid the expense, trouble, and delay of adducing proofs on facts that, absent a stipulation, are contestable."  Though I have one colleague that refuses to enter in to stipulations because he feels that it throws off the flow or leaves holes in his presentation, generally, stipulations are a good thing because it cuts down on what is already limited trial time. 

Courts often also require parties to confer about joint exhibits for the same reason.  Once the parties agree, the exhibits are marked and should go into evidence without the need for authentication of other testimony.  Examples of things that are commonly joint exhibits are tax returns, bank records, prior court orders and transcripts, credit card records, and the like. 

The question then is, does a trial court have to accept the stipulation, and if they don't, what is supposed to happen.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An interesting issue was recently considered by the Court in the case of Muller v. Muller. Specifically, the Appellate Division examined whether a husband could compel the sale of the marital home when he had conveyed his interest by way of deed about ten years earlier, but the parties’ Property Settlement Agreement (“PSA”) had provided for the husband’s continued ownership.

The parties in Muller were married for 17 years. When they divorced in 1990, they entered into a PSA, which, in part, provided as follows:

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
A. Husband and Wife agree to divide equally the personalty . . . upon sale of the premises or child's emancipation, whichever shall first occur.
B. Upon execution of contract of sale of the above premises, Husband agrees to put his interest in the marital home in trust for Child.
. . . .

REAL ESTATE
A. Husband agrees to pay the mortgage payments [on the marital home] . . . until the time that child graduates from college, or reaches the age of 22, whichever shall first occur[.]

The husband paid the mortgage from the time of the divorce until around 1999 when he defaulted on the payments. The mortgagee instituted foreclosure proceedings in or around July of 2000. In order to avoid foreclosure, the wife borrowed about $60,000 and refinanced the property. The husband executed a deed and conveyed the wife his ownership interest in the property for consideration of $50,000. As a result, the wife exonerated him of the debt the he had incurred by defaulting on the mortgage payments. At the point, the child was 21 years old and had graduated from college.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have blogged before on the increasing trend by trial courts to deny litigant's an opportunity to engage in oral argument in motion practice.  Rule 5:5-4 of the New Jersey Rules of Court provides that "the court shall ordinarily grant requests for oral argument on substantive and non-routine discovery motions . . . ."  Considering the highly overburdened court calendars currently plaguing the family court system in New Jersey, a trial court's reluctance to hear oral argument is understandable if it believes such argument is unnecessary based on the underlying papers before it.  However, oral argument is generally required where such substantive issues are raised and oral argument is requested so that a litigant has a full opportunity to present his or her case.

That brings us to the Appellate Division's recently unpublished (not precedential) decision in Rains v. Rains.  There, the former husband filed a motion to terminate or modify his alimony and life insurance obligations based on the former wife's inheritance received post-divorce.  The husband's application and wife's opposition each included a Case Information Statement presenting disparate pictures of the marital lifestyle for reference by the trial court in analyzing husband's claims for relief (not surprisingly, husband's presented marital lifestyle was far lower than that portrayed by wife).

Each party also submitted detailed proposals on the rate of return wife would receive on her inheritance.  Again, not surprisingly, husband proposed a rate of return higher than that posited by the wife based on a slightly more aggressive approach. 

Both parties requested oral argument, but the trial judge denied such requests and entered an Order with an accompanying statement of reasons that, in part, terminated the alimony obligation.  In the statement of reasons the trial court justified its basis for denying oral argument, but then proceeded to impute a reasonable rate of return on wife's inheritance based on a methodology proposed by neither party in their respective applications.  Since oral argument was denied, the parties were also denied the ability to contest the methodology unilaterally chosen by the court.  Notably, the statement of reasons also did not include a determination as to the parties' marital lifestyle, concluding that such a finding was unnecessary because the parties voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement without making a lifestyle determination. 

Reversing the trial court's decision, the Appellate Division found that the rate of return methodology employed by the trial court should have been the subject of oral argument by the parties, especially since the case law from which such methodology was derived was not applicable in all cases.  The Appellate Division found that the trial court should have considered the fact specific circumstances before it to determine a reasonable rate of return.  On remand, the trial court was to, among other things, make a finding as to the marital lifestyle. 

Most importantly, though, was that the parties would be able to more fully present their arguments as to a reasonable rate of return on wife's inheritance as it related to husband's modification/termination applicaiton.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have in the past blogged on cases which have been decided involving applications for a modification of support obligations based upon economic changes in circumstances. While the vast majority of these have been related to decreases in income due to the current economic times, there are other reasons why a request for a change might be made.

We often hear and read about the effect of second marriages on families, both good and bad. And we know that when a person marries for the second (or third) time, a prenuptial agreement is usually a wise idea. However, what is not as often spoken about is the profound effect that a second marriage or domestic relationship can have on existing financial obligations between former spouses or domestic partners.

A typical situation is one in which a former spouse receiving support, remarries, and the alimony obligation of the paying spouse will be terminated.   However,  the case where a former spouse remarried and is no longer entitled to alimony, may be a change of circumstances which warrants a review of child support obligations.  Child support obligations are calculated, in part, on a paying parent’s available net income after any spousal support obligations are taken into consideration. Thus, in the event of a remarriage and a termination of an alimony obligation, the paying parent will have an increase in income, thereby increasing the child support obligation. 

Another example of the effect of a second marriage is not as common. At the time of divorce, Mary was entitled to or really needed $200.00 per week in spousal support in order to maintain the lifestyle of the marriage. Because Jim, her former husband, was then unable to pay her the $200.00 per week without having to take a significant reduction in his lifestyle, he was only ordered to pay Mary $100.00 per week. Now, Jim has fallen in love again and has married Jane. When Jim remarried, he and Jane moved in to her house, and his expenses were understandably reduced as Jane was also working and contributing to the household. This may be a basis for Mary, the first wife, to make an application to the court for an increase in alimony based upon a change in circumstances- Jim’s ability to pay. A related scenario is if Jim had merely moved in with someone and was sharing expenses.

Finally, another area in which a second marriage can have an impact is that of financial aid for college.  Some institutions review income information from all sources of income in a household, not just that of the parents.  This has had a significant impact on financial aid and parental responsibility for college costs in cases in which we have been involved..

Second families bring all sorts of issues, both financial and emotional, to the table. As the wedding guest list is being compiled, it is often a good idea to squeeze in a consultation with a lawyer so that your financial obligations going forward can be crystallized

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New changes implemented by the IRS to the "Innocent Spouse" rule provide greater protection for those spouses seeking relief under the broadly described "inequity" provision of the rule.  Generally, speaking, most spouses file joint tax returns and do not consider a subsequent tax liability that may befall upon them.  In the face of such a scenario, the innocent spouse rule can provide relief from liability for a partner's tax debt under certain conditions.  For a greater sense of the rule and its specifics,review this prior entry on our blog and the linked alert previously issued by our Family Law Department on the topic.

New protections afforded by the legislative changes relieve claimants of the strict confines of a 2 year limitation on filing claims when the spouse claims that it would simply be inequitable to hold him or her responsible, which, in actuality, covers a broad spectrum of claims not encompassed by the other more narrow provisions leading to innocent spouse status.  Previously under a claim of inequity, if the spouse did not file for relief within 2 years of receiving an IRS collection notice of the subject debt, that spouse was not entitled to relief.  Oftentimes, an otherwise qualified spouse would be denied relief even if they did not know of the notice until after 2 years had passed (including cases where one spouse hid the notice from the other) or, even more specifically in the case of an abused spouse, knew of the notice but was too afraid to notify the IRS from fear of spousal retribution.

Significantly, this rule will seemingly apply both prospectively and retroactively, and the IRS may even suspend collection efforts on pending debts.  Even better, if you were previously denied a claim for innocent spouse status under an inequity claim due to the 2 year rule, the IRS said that you can reapply for the very same relief in most cases.  Suffice it to say, the relief for eligible "innocent spouses" can be life altering.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I had a case recently where we had a conference call with the judge during which time, a discrete issue holding up resolution of a larger issue was discussed.  The judge made a suggestion which I took down verbatim and drafted language which I thought would resolve the issue. The problem, the judge's suggestion was contrary to what the other litigant wanted.  So what appeared to happen is that his lawyer either did not accurately report what was said or "spun" it in a way to not accurately reflect what the judge said.

In another matter, resolution of financial issues were discussed in chambers with the judge.  As I was reporting to my client what the judge said, we heard the other lawyer, who was speaking way to loud given as close as he was, spinning a entirely different client because the truth was not something the client would have wanted to hear.

Aside from running up counsel fees, seeking clarification from the judge (or hoping that she/he will change her/his mind), what purpose does this serve?  Is saving face with a client better than being honest, if not brutally honest, about their prospects?

I have heard many clients say that they went to initial consultations with attorneys who promised the world to get the case, only to then fail to deliver.  Of course they failed to deliver if they were promising that which is contrary to the law, overreaching or unreasonable under the circumstances. 

While clients have a right to seek what they want, they need to hear what they can realistically expect so that they are not surprised if they don't get the result that they have hoped for.  There are parties that want to push the envelope, either because an issue is novel, or because they really want something but are willing to give up something else, and sometimes for un-pure reasons.  However, if they are fully informed of their chances, or what the judge is saying, or both, they will not be able to say,"you never told me." Moreover, it is better for a party to learn the truth as early as possible so that they can decide whether they really want to fight a losing fight or preserve their financial and emotional resources.

__________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric practices in Fox Rothschild's Roseland, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The cover of yesterday's New York Post read "Ahhhnold:  I Wont Pay A Dime."  That was curious so I next went to the story written by Andy Soltis and the headline was "Arnold Schwartzeneggar Rejects Maria Shriver's bid for spousal support.  As if the cover and headline were not bad enough, the story obnoxiously starts "First, he cheated on her. Now he's trying to cheat her out of tens of millions of dollars."  I then set out on line to see what other newspapers or news sources were saying about this, and while less outrageous, they were equally misleading.  How do I know they were misleading?  I found the actual pleading on-line,

In California, it seems, that there is a mandatory 3 page form Response to a Divorce Petition which I would surmise is a similar form.  The form has blanks to fill and and boxes to check about issues in dispute.  So I looked at the form to see if Arnold said he wouldn't pay a dime or rejected Maria's bid for support.  I found the "smoking gun".  In the box that said "Spousal Support Payable to" the boxes for both Petitioner and Respondent were left empty.  Scandalous!?!  As to counsel fees, because some stories had him refusing to pay them to, he checked of the box suggesting each pay their own.  Scoundrel!?!

My guess that this is standard pleading practice and no big deal.  In New Jersey, we don't have fill in the blank and check the box forms but our pleading practice is reasonably similar for most cases.  The first pleading of the higher wage earner never usually asks that she/he be ordered to pay alimony and in response to their spouse's first pleading, they always ask that it be dismissed.  Are they saying that they are refusing to pay support?  No.  It is just standard pleading practice and no big deal.

Now getting back to Arnold, who, if you look at the full link to the story (above), appears to be deemed to be the "worm-inator", would he really have to pay spousal support.  I can't speak to California, but in many cases where there are extraordinary net worths that both parties will have once the divorce is over, they may not have a need for alimony.  Moreover, to the extent that she may have separate Kennedy assets or income from trusts or otherwise, that could suggest that there is no need. Moreover, if Arnold is not currently working and has no earned income, that too could be a factor. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Leslie Spoltore, a partner in our Wilmington, Delaware office and contributor to the firm's Delaware Trial Practice Blog, wrote an instructive post on the Child Passport Issuance Alert Program.

Leslie notes that It is not unusual for parents who are involved in custody disputes to ask an attorney or other third party to hold a child’s passport in escrow to prevent one parent from leaving the country with the child. Another option is to enroll the child in the Child Passport Issuance Alert Program (“CPIAP”). The program, which is run by the U.S. Department of State, is available for U.S. Citizen children under the age of 18 and provides that if a passport application is filed on behalf of an enrolled child, the Department will contact and alert that child’s parent or parents. Leslie further suggests that to learn more about this program or to access an Entry Request Form, please see the Department web page.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New Jersey Judiciary website provides each days published and unpublished Appellate Division decisions.  If you read this blog with any frequency, you know that we often write about the decisions that are released.  Today there were three decisions from post-judgment divorce cases.  We will likely blog in more detail about some or all of them in the future.  What is interesting is that despite the fact that historically, appeals succeed only approximately 20% of the time, there were reversals in all three cases. 

In one, alimony was modified and permanent alimony was awarded without the court holding a plenary hearing (i.e. trial) on the contested issues. 

In another, the trial judge modified child support, multiplying the old child support amount  by the percentage increase in the plaintiff's income.  The Appellate Division held that a simple mathematical calculation does not comply with the mandates of the statute and case law.  They further held that while the percentage increase is an important factor in determining the support obligation, it is not exclusive and does not relieve the trial judge of performing the required analysis
prescribed by the statute and case law.

In the third, there were conflicting certifications regarding a husband's application to reduce support and the wife's cross application for enforcement.  Not only was there no plenary hearing ordered despite conflicting certifications, there was not even oral argument on the motion allowed despite both parties requests for same.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is a case in New Jersey called Sheridan v. Sheridan,247 N.J. Super. 552 (Ch. Div. 1990), that requires trial judges to report evidence (usually after a trial or hearing) of any illegal activity to the proper authorities.  It most cases, it comes up in the context of unreported or under reported income cases, affectionately known as "Sheridan cases."  That said, I have often joked that this is like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, that is, we have all heard about the legend, but no one has actually seen it.  I have even tried cases where a party testified about cash and employees who were "off the books", and other cases where the excess perks paid through the business were massive, with no referral to the IRS, etc. 

However, in the last two months, I have seen two unreported Appellate Division decisions which noted that the trial court made a Sheridan referral. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Very often, we deal with cases where one or both parties' incomes are variable, because they are tied to commissions, etc,. or heavily tied to a bonus which can vary.  In fact, for many people who work on Wall Street, their salary (oftentimes in the $120,000 to $150,000 per year range), makes up a small percentage of their annual income with the rest coming as bonus at the end of the year or in the first quarter of the next year.  Moreover, it is not uncommon for the bonuses to vary widely from year to year based upon company performance, etc.

This often makes cases difficult to settle, especially during the uncertain if not unstable economic times of the last several years. Typically, the law provides that when someones income is variable, that a 3 or 5 year average should be considered for support purposes.  In these times, is that fair.  Take the person working at a hedge fund who was earning seven figures for several years, but for the last few years, if they still had a job, only earned their $120,000 per year salary.  Ask that person if taking an average of 3 or 5 years for support purposes is fair.  Moreover, from a cash flow perspective, even when an average is used, the payor can be really strained to pay support if their actual income is lower than the average used.  As time goes by after the divorce, in theory, this should be balanced by the years when they earn in excess of the average.  In the years closest to a divorce, after all assets were distributed and perhaps the liquid assets were used to pay for the divorce, to pay equitable distribution, to buy a new home, etc., there may be no fund to serve as the buffer in one of these under average years. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It has been said that Facebook is a treasure trove of evidence in divorce matters.  We have previously blogged on how a person's posts on social media sights can be used against them in a divorce.  More specifically, I recently blogged on how awoman's permanent alimony claim in a NY matter was killed because she was blogging about her belly dancing affinity despite claiming in her case that she was disabled.

That said, there is an old saying to the effect "don't believe everything you read."  That was surely the case in an article I saw today on Yahoo News by Katy Steinmetz which may be from Time.  In it, this maxim truly comes in to play.

The story talks about a case where a woman pretended to be a 17-year-old on Facebook to draw out incriminating evidence from her ex-husband.  The joke, however, was on her.  Suspecting that the 17-year old was actually his ex-wife, he prepared a notarized  document setting forth the particulars and stating that he actually wished her no harm.  Specifically, he said that "... he was engaging with this person and lying in order to gain proof that his ex-wife was tampering with his personal life, proof he would then use himself in court."  He then communicated with the alleged 17 year old claiming to put a GPS device on his former wife's car and suggesting that the 17-year old find a classmate who would "... put a cap in her ass for $10,000."  Not surprising, the authorities soon came calling but armed with this notarized affidavit, the man was exonerated.

I have heard of domestic violence matters where the accuser tried to use alleged emails and texts from the defendant in order to get a final restraining order except that the so-called evidence turned out to be fakes.

So don't believe everything you read.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have to admit it.  I have not always been a fan of the 4-way conference.  Often, they have been the bastion of bad behavior, posturing and often just not as productive as mediation with attorneys present or negotiations back and forth, in writing, between counsel.  That said, I am beginning to come around to seeing the usefulness of earlier meetings and earlier mediations, where appropriate, to try to resolve as much as possible, as early as possible.  In fact, I was recently reminded of the importance of the willingness to meet when an opposing counsel was fired, seemingly because that attorney refused to meet or even pick up a phone to discuss issues.

The meetings do not have to be simply for settlement.  More often than not, couples continue to reside in the same household while the divorce case is pending.  Often in these cases, at best, people are on edge and at worst, it is the War of the Roses.  In these situations, an early meeting can be helpful to address conduct and civility within the home and perhaps interim exclusive parenting time between each party and the child(ren).  The alternative could be a domestic violence situation (real or bogus) which could possibly have been avoided.  Temporary support issues can be discussed.  The use, sale and/or restraints on assets can be addressed.  A source of funds for payment of counsel or expert fees can be discussed.  There really is no limit to what can be addressed.

Since custody and parenting time are issues that the courts want to have resolved sooner than later, because custody evaluations take a long time and are expensive, an early meeting can root out whether there are bona fide issues, or whether a settlement on these issues can be reached. 

Other times, these meetings are a good opportunity to allow one or both party with something "on their chest" to have the cathartic experience of getting something off their chest.  In some cases, this allows the issues in the case to be addressed now that this is behind the parties.

In other cases, the entire case can be settled or at least a framework for settlement can be reached, subject to the exchange of certain documents so that each side can be comfortable that they know everything that there is to know.  Even if you cannot settle, you get to learn about the other side's positions, issues, perhaps evidence, etc. 

While we are used to and adept at litigation and while some cases require some (if not a lot of litigation), this is not the case in every divorce.  Even in high conflict matters, meetings and opening a real dialog can help to keep the lid on things so that the attention can be turned to the real issues.  Figuring when to meet is the trick.  Refusing to meet, at all, is usually a mistake.  Usually something good can come of it.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I previously blogged about a case in which a father appealed a decision by the trial court for him to contribute towards college expenses for his two children. To review that prior blog, click here. The fifth ( yes, fifth) appeal on the same issues was recently decided. In Tafaro V, the Appellate Division discussed situations in which litigants come back repeatedly to the courts on the same issues.

In the Tafaro matter, the parties’ property settlement agreement had provided that college costs would be determined at the time they were incurred, and also that consent to school should not be unreasonably withheld. Subsequently, the parties were unable to agree as to college and the division of costs, so they sought assistance from the court. Eventually, however, in 2004, Ms. Tafaro was given final authority on the major decisions for the children including their schooling by the court. This was upheld in the first appeal. Subsequently, Ms. Tafaro had to come back to court to obtain contribution towards college expenses and Mr. Tafaro then appeal that order, and lost.

Three more appeals followed, all of which resulted in affirmations of the trial court decisions, and in the last the Appellate Division discussed the concept of “law of the case.” The doctrine of law of the case is a legal concept that is designed to prevent the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided. In situations in which, as in the Tafaro matter, litigants keep asking the courts to review the same issue over and over, it is appropriate to stop the litigation. Thus, once the time for appeal has expired, the courts decision becomes the “law of the case” and the issues of college cannot be re-litigated.

Certainly, the law of the case would not apply in a situation in which facts have changed such that it would be inequitable to bar a party from seeking help from the courts. However, when a party asks for the same relief continually, the doctrine can close the doors.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My father used to tell a bad joke that went "Q. Why do men die before their wives?  A. Because they want to."  Bad joke aside, while there are many studies that show that men are typically financially better off then women after a divorce, are they happier?  There is now a study that suggests that maybe they are not.

In fact, Aaron Weems, an associate in our Bucks County office and editor of our Pennsylvania Family Law Blog recently posted an interesting piece on that blog on the The Longevity Project, entitled "Ladies: Get Divorced and Live Great; Guys, Get Divorced and Die Early."

Aaron noted that  the authors concluded that after going through a divorce women tend to thrive and live long, active lives, while men, quite simply, do not. They die early. Aaron further noted that the impact on divorce was surprising: men who divorced, stayed divorced, or remarried and divorced again saw their mortality rates rise far above their long-married peers. Women, on the other hand, seemed to thrive after they divorced (single women and widows did similarly well). The authors reasoning was that women often left bad marriages and, for possibly the first time in their adult lives, found themselves in charge of their own life and were invigorated by the opportunity to live independently.

In any event, both Aaron's blog and the study itself are interesting reads and food for thought.  I will leave the joke telling to my father, however.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last year, I blogged on this topic after I was at a mediation where the mediator, when telling us his assessment of my client's case, said that he was creating "settlement anxiety." At the time, I had never heard of this term but what I believed was meant was that the mediator wanted the client to have "anxiety" about his/her position in order to be more likely to make compromises and settle. If the goal is getting a settlement at all costs, I guess it makes sense - but is it fair, especially where one party is acting reasonably, and the other is not.  As this has come up in two recent mediations, I thought it made sense to reprise this post.

In most cases, there is a "realm of reasonableness" or a range in which any settlement would be essentially fair. Perhaps, a fair alimony figure could be between $100,000 per year and $125,000 per year. A fair resolution could be either of those numbers and anything in the middle. In most cases, people, with all relevant facts and acting reasonably, negotiate within the realm of reasonableness, but at either end depending on which side of the case they are on. In that case, a mediator trying to create "settlement anxiety" will try to express the flaws in either case to get the parties to meet somewhere in the middle to achieve a result that is fair.

But what about cases where one party is negotiating within the realm of reasonableness and the other is not? Put another way, what about cases where one party has the law and the facts pretty much on their side as to most issues and the other side is taking a position that is absurd? In this case, should the mediator be trying to create similar "settlement anxiety" in both parties? Add another level - what if the mediator knows that the unreasonable party will never settle the matter in a reasonable fashion? Should the mediator pressure/create the same amount of "anxiety" in the more reasonable party just to achieve a settlement even though everyone knows it is unfair? Should the result be settlement at all costs? Does this type of pressure on the righteous party just to get a deal done artificially undermine a party's relationship with her counsel and experts, if just for settlement purposes, they are told that their case is weak when it is not?

In my humble opinion, pointing out the legitimate limitations in someones case in order to help create a settlement is fair and appropriate. On the other hand, creating artificial anxiety just to get a settlement all all costs because one party is acting unreasonably or negotiating in bad faith is not. The system should be fair and equitable and the parties are entitled to justice. It is neither fair nor justice to lessen a party's confidence in their case, artificially, just because the other side will never settle in a fair and reasonable manner.

That does not mean a party cannot give more ore receive less just to get a case done and move on with their life. That is their choice. In fact, in recent cases, the mediators have used the anticipated costs of litigation as the pressure point on the party with the more reasonable position. Perhaps the better tactic would be to tell the unreasonable person of their exposure to pay the reasonable party's legal fees.

That said, the reasonable litigant should not be manipulated just because the other side refuses to be reasonable. And as I have blogged before, sometimes you just have to try a case.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is typical for divorce agreements to contain a provision requiring an alimony payor to maintain life insurance to secure his alimony obligation and one, if not both parents to maintain life insurance to secure their obligations to their children.  In fact, Jennifer Millner, a contributor this this blog, and a partner in our Princeton office, recently did a post entitled Child Support Obligations Live on After Death, addressing what happens when a support obligor does not have the required life insurance at his death.

It is also typical for someone to cover their life insurance obligations through insurance they get as a benefit of their employment.  Many companies, for example, offer as a benefit, life insurance - one times their salary, three times their salary - for example.  What happens when someone leaves their job and loses this life insurance?

That issue was addressed by the Appellate Division in an unreported (non-precedential) opinion released on April 1, 2011 in a case entitled Starr v. Starr.  In this case, to secure his alimony, in the divorce agreement, it provided that, "Defendant shall designate plaintiff as a beneficiary of $150,000.00 of the proceeds of the group life insurance made available to him through his employment."  However, in 2005, he was given notice that his employment was terminating.  He did have the option of converting his group life insurance to an individual policy but he did not. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a follow up to my blog post of last week, this week the Appellate Division came down with yet another cohabitation decision. The case of Pizzuti v. Proctor was decided on March 31, 2011. In Pizzuti, the wife appealed from a decision wherein the trial court terminated her former husband’s alimony obligation of $100 per week on a finding of changed circumstances based on the wife’s cohabitation with an unrelated male.

At the trial level the husband submitted a myriad of proofs that the wife was cohabitating in support of his obligation to terminate alimony. His efforts were for naught however, because the fact that she was cohabitating went completely uncontested. Indeed, in response to the husband’s allegations, the wife stated as follows: "I will spare the Court the trouble of scheduling a plenary hearing because I admit that I do cohabitate with Mr. Argenzio at his home, located [in] Ramsey, New Jersey and have been since 1999." However, as I stated in my previous blog, proof of cohabitation is only half the battle. The next inquiry is whether, by virtue of the cohabitation, the wife was economically dependant on her new paramour. In New Jersey, the fact of economic dependence is presumed upon a showing of cohabitation, and it is incumbent the cohabitating spouse to prove otherwise.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Very often, when parties settle their cases, in their Marital Settlement Agreement (a/k/a Property Settlement Agreement), there is a provision to the effect that if a party does not comply with the Agreement, they will be liable for the other party's fees if the Agreement has to be enforced in Court.  That said, court's more often than not disregard that paragraph (as well as the Rule 1:10-3 which suggests an award of counsel fees when a party fails to comply with an Order), and apply the typical matrimonial case law and court rules regarding fee shifting in a matrimonial matter, if the court gives any real consideration to the issue, at all.  The aggrieved litigant is often frustrated by the fact that they had to incur fees to get something that they were already entitled to.  The offending party is sometimes empowered because he or she has suffered no negative result from the failure to comply.

However, in a refreshing unreported (non-precedential) opinion in the case of Ullmann v. Ullmann decided on March 23,2011, the Appellate Division held that it was improper for the trial court to ignore that provision in the parties' agreement.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is well-settled law in New Jersey that child support and alimony awards are always modifiable. While there is an abundance of case law in the area of post-judgment modifications of support obligations, particularly in this economic climate, the most often cited case for modification is the seminal New Jersey case of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980). Indeed, the Lepis Court was the first in holding that when changed circumstances substantially impinge upon the supporting spouse’s ability to pay support at the level ordered, a modification of the support order might be necessary. The burden to prove this change in circumstances falls upon the supporting spouse when such a downward modification is sought.

A reduction in the supporting spouse’s income has long been recognized as a changed circumstance warranting a support modification, so long as it is not temporary in nature. In addition, the recent Appellate Division case of Angelastro v. Angelastro, recently solidified the notion that a support modification may be sought when the supported spouse’s economic circumstances change for the better.

In Angelastro, the parties’ property settlement agreement, executed in September of 2008, awarded the wife alimony as follows:

The [h]usband shall pay to the [w]ife[,] starting at the sale of the marital home[,] the sum of $350[] a week in [a]limony commencing for a period of six (6) years. Upon the completion of aforementioned six (6) years[,] the [h]usband's [a]limony obligation shall reduce to that of $200[] and continue for a period of eight (8) years thereafter representing a total payment period of fourteen (14) years.

In addition, child support in the amount of $200 per week was provided for. The parties’ property settlement agreement specifically predicated the above support awards upon the wife’s imputed income of approximately $25,000.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the hardest questions to answer for a client is why a Court doesn't enforce their own Orders.  The next hardest questions to answer are if they found the other side in violation of litigant's rights, (1) why weren't there any real consequences for the violation of the order and (2) why didn't I get counsel fees.  The Court Rules suggest that a litigant is entitled to counsel fees if they are required to come to court to enforce an Order.  In addition, the court rules in the family part also include numerous provisions, including the imposition of monetary sanctions and counsel fees, for violation of a parenting time (visitation) Order. 

As such, it was interesting to see the unreported decision in the case of Friedman v. Friedman decided on March 7, 2011 wherein an awarded of sanctions for violating a parenting time order was affirmed by the Appellate Division.  In this case, the father asserted that the mother violated the parties' parenting schedule when she "signed both children out of school and drove them to [Virginia]." As a result, the father sought sanctions against the mother "for making unilateral changes" to the parenting schedule "and for failing to cooperate with the recommendations of the Parenting coordinator."  The trial judge found that  the mother violated the parties' parenting schedule and the recommendations of the parent coordinator by extending "the children's time with her, in Virginia."  As a result, the mother was ordered ordered to pay the father $500.00 as a sanction plus reimburse him for his costs to file and serve the motion.  The decision was based upon the court's finding that the mother had a history of failing to cooperate with the plaintiff.  In addition, the mother's request to relieve the current parent coordinator was denied.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, Sandra Fava, a contributor to this blog, did a piece on preparing for the initial divorce consultation with a lawyer.  The process, however, starts even before that.  On our web site, we have an advice piece entitled Preparing for the Divorce Process. 

Since it is linked to this post, I will not repeat everything contained in the piece.  However, the topics contained in that piece are as follows:

1. Speak to an attorney now, not later
2. Selecting the right attorney (including how to get referrals for an attorney)
3. Gathering documentation
4. Preparing for the initial meeting
5. Telling the truth
6. Keeping a diary; and
7. Trusting your attorney for legal advice (as opposed to friends, family members, co-workers, etc.)

Do I stay or do I go? This is not an easy question to answer. However, if you are even
contemplating a divorce, divorce planning (and not in the nefarious way that often goes with this phrase) is essential, especially in difficult economic times.  Divorce can be a long, highly charged, expensive process - emotionally and economically. Being prepared and keeping
perspective, at least as much as humanly possible, can help you save time and legal fees
while protecting your and your children's interests.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is a not too uncommon phenomenon that is frequently seen in divorce cases.  Specifically, as soon as the notion of a divorce action become a reality, many supporting spouse's incomes suddenly, and usually without valid explanation, drop substantially.  It may come as no surprise that someone may want to manipulate their income when an alimony or child support obligation is about to be set.  This affliction is sometimes known as "R.A.I.D.S." or Rapidly Acquired Income Deficiency Syndrome (sometimes also known as "SIDS"  Sudden Income Deficiency Syndrome.)  In fact, income reduction during the year of a divorce is so common for a self employed individual there is a natural skepticism about it.

I did a blog on this phenomenon in May 2008 and was recently asked for permission that it be reproduced for publication for an CLE program in Indiana.  That cased me to look at it again and update it below.

As noted then, there are times when there are valid, legitimate and explainable deviations in someones income.  Some people are in commission sales and one year is legitimately better than another.  Perhaps someones income is tied to real estate.  Back then, I gave the example that a person may have a legitimate reason why 2007 and 2008 were down years, citing mortgage bankers and realtors as people who were probably hurting then. Those people are probably still hurting as are commercial real estate brokers, builders, contractors and other people tied to the real estate industry.  Since that time, Wall Street has changed substantially.  While the market is now coming back, there has been much turmoil in the last two and a half years and many have gone through job changes.  Some medical professionals are working harder and making less.  Accountants that worked with small businesses may have fewer clients and lower revenues in light of the recent recession.

 At the time of the original blog, I talked of a recent where if you looked at my client's tax returns and W-2s, one would think that support should have been based upon a seven figure income as opposed to a mid-six figure income.  In this case, there were some discrete one time payments from exercises of stock options and change of control of companies that he worked for.  (As it turned out, his subsequent income was more in line with the lower number as opposed to the higher number, justifying our excluding the non-recurring income from consideration).

Situations of legitimately fluctuating income were not what I was talking about.  In fact, when there is non-recurring income, it may be legitimate to back it out for purposes of computing support or else the support would not be fair to the payor.  When income legitimately fluctuates from year to year, the Child Support Guidelines and decisional law suggest taking an average (3 or 5 years is common). 

The cases that I was talking about are those where there is no explanation for the sudden drop in income.  Very often, this occurs when the supporting spouse is self employed.  There are many ways income is hidden.  Sometimes, it is just not collected - as possibly evidenced by a large rise in accounts receivable.  Sometimes, there may be several capital expenditures or large equipment purchases, which reduce the profits and thus the income.  Other times, perquisites or personal expenses paid by the business increase dramatically.  Check the business credit cards - they are often illuminating in this regard.  Cash is also a possibility as are other manipulations with payments received.   We have a case now where we suspect payments to a third party to divert a spouses income.  Sometimes a person's loan account and/or cash at hand increases without explanation suggesting that money is being left in the business for no reason.

In these cases, discovery is critical to smoke out the true income and real reason for the alleged reduction in income.  The use of a forensic accountant is often essential to get to the correct income number.  

RAIDS is certainly an illness that can be diagnosed and with the proper team of lawyers and experts, cured so that the supported spouse is treated fairly. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While there are many similarities between the states when it comes to family law, there are also many differences.  That fact was recently highlighted in the context of business valuation, specifically, what things should be considered to arrive at a value for equitable distribution, in a post recently seen on our firm's Pennsylvania Family Law Blog.  Specifically,Aaron Weems is an attorney in our Warrington (Bucks County), Pennsylvania office and editor of the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog wrote an interesting post entitled "Superior Court Changes How Businesses are Valued."

In the Balicki case that Aaron discussed, at issue was the valuation of an insurance agency.  It was understood that the business would not be sold, therefore, in deciding the value of the business, the Master excluded expenses of sale, transfer, or liquidation which could include broker commissions, finders fees, attorney fees and accountant fees. The appellate court reversed finding that this was improper.  Moreover, the appellate court found error in the fact that the Master failed to take into consideration any taxes that may be associated with the sale or liquidation of a business.

 

Aaron noted that the appellate court held that Pennsylvania statutes 23 PACSA § 3502(a)(10.1) and (10.2) required that for the purposes of equitable distribution of marital property, the Court must consider the Federal, state and local tax ramifications even if they are not “immediate and certain”, and similarly, the sale, transfer, or liquidation of an asset need also not be “immediate and certain,” either.

 

The practical effect of this reducing these hypothetical expenses is that it reduces the marital estate, and therefore, the other spouses overall equitable distribution award. Would the same result be reached in New Jersey?

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Visiting a divorce attorney for an initial consultation can be a difficult and intimidating proposition.  For some, it is the realization that their marriage may be over.  For others, it is simply the discussion of such deeply personal matters with a stranger.

Nerves or trepidation aside, the main purpose of the initial consultation is to learn about the process and understand what your rights and obligations could be.  The law is never black and white but has many shades of gray.  A good consultation will explain the black and white and touch upon the relevant areas of gray. 

The initial consultation is also important because this process lets you interview your potential counsel.  Not only is it important that you find the attorney you plan to hire to be competent and best able to represent your interests, but its important that you also like your potential counsel.  Sounds trivial but keep in mind that your divorce lawyer is someone who is quickly going to learn the good and the bad of you and your most personal relationship, your marriage.  Secrets aren't helpful and a level of trust is required.

So what can you do to make sure you get the most out of this initial consultation and at the same time provide counsel the relevant and important information needed?  Here are some suggestions:

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many divorces involve distribution of assets, including pensions.  To protect the non-titled party entitled to receive a share of the asset, i.e. pension, the court may mandate or the parties will negotiate security to ensure receipt of the value of the asset.  In a recent unpublished post judgment Appellate Division decision, Brown v. Brown, decided January 3, 2011, the court awarded the plaintiff-wife attorneys fees for enforcing defendant-husband's obligation under the Judgment of Divorce to obtain a life insurance policy that guarantees the wife's interest in defendant's pension payments.  But the Appellate court refused to uphold the trial court's Order, which imposed monetary sanctions against the husband for failing to obtain the requisite life insurance policy. 

Defendant-husband was required to obtain a life insurance policy and to select a payout option where the wife would receive monthly income if the husband were to predecease the wife.  However, the husband failed to obtain the requisite life insurance and attempted to select the pension benefit that would maximize his income during retirement but would preclude the wife from receiving any income should he predecease her.  Only through the diligence of the wife was it discovered that husband had attempted to select the incorrect payout option.  As a result, the wife filed two motions seeking to enforce her rights under the Judgment of Divorce.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent case in which one party sought to enforce a purported settlement demonstrates the difficulties that arise when there is no signed agreement. In the unreported ( non-precedential) case of Galdo v. Hagarty, the parties were both represented by counsel during a dispute about the payment of child support and college expenses for one of their children. The father had filed an appeal of an order which required him to pay a percentage of college expenses and the mother filed an application for enforcement of the order. Thereafter, the parties agreed to explore a settlement and proceeded to negotiate through their counsel. Over a course of months the attorneys exchanged correspondence as well as emails. The mother received copies of many of the communications. 

Subsequently, the mother’s attorney faxed to the father’s attorney a proposed settlement. Father’s attorney then emailed a revised agreement  the next day. Twelve minutes later, mother’s attorney sent an email agreeing to the proposal and asking that Father’s attorney confirm that there was a settlement. Approximately an hour later, Father’s attorney sent a confirming email.    Father then took no further action on the appeal and it was later dismissed. Father then made an application to terminate child support for one of the children, which was not opposed by the mother.

 

Several months later,  the mother made an application to vacate the order terminating the child support, and enforcing the college expenses order which was the subject of the earlier appeal and settlement. She argued that there had been no settlement agreement that was reached. The father replied that there was in fact a settlement which was evidenced by the communications between the lawyers as well as the conduct of the parties after those communications. The father made a cross application for enforcement of the settlement agreement. The trial judge denied the father’s application for enforcement of a settlement and enforced the earlier order which required the father to pay a percentage of the college expenses.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Can a trial court tell a litigant is a divorce that they don't have to pay their lawyer more than a capped amount.?  On November 30, 2010, the Appellate Division in the unreported case entitled McClutchy v. McClutchy answered this question no.

In this case, what apparently was a hotly contested matter that went to trial, but which the trial judge deemed ordinary and not complex, at the end of the trial the court was called upon to assess the parties' respective request for counsel fees that they were asking the other party to pay. Normally, each attorney would submit a Certification of Services required by Court Rule explaining and listing the work done. In this however, the trial court limited them to a one page submission about what was owed and what had been paid.  Thereafter, the trial judge, thinking that the parties' respective fees were excessive ruled that the parties fees were capped at $50,000 each, despite that substantially more had been expended and was owed, and moreover, that the lawyers could not seek to collect the amount over and above.  One of the things the judge commented on was that he thought that the matter could have been handled by an associate, as opposed to experienced counsel of the client's choosing.

The Appellate Division reversed this decision finding that it was beyond the scope of the trial court's authority, especially where the client was not objecting to the fee.  Even if that were to have happened, there are other avenues to address this and the trial court could not do so.

This case, while clearly an aberration in the system, raises several issues.  First, if a client retains and wants pre-eminent counsel to represent them, it is not for the court to dispute their right to hire counsel of their choosing.  in addition, there are times where cases that seem "easy" or "garden variety" do not settle.  Some times it is because one party is unreasonable or acts in bad faith.  Some times it is because both parties are unreasonable.  Some times it is because one party does not want a divorce so they drag the matter out with the hopes that the other spouse will "come to his/her senses" and take him/her back.  Of course, by precluding the filing of a Certification of Services, the Court did not get to see what was done and perhaps did not get information as to why this seemingly easy case went to trial. 

This case is another cautionary tale.  Things aren't always as they seem.  Litigant's have a right to pursue issues in court and have a court make a decision on.  They also have a right to fully present their request for counsel fees to explain why the quantum of fees was what it was.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an interesting unreported (non-precedential) decision released on October 13, 2010, the Appellate Division held that it was error to dismiss a case simply because a litigant was not ready to proceed on the date of a final hearing because they sought their own expert in a custody matter. 

In McCain v. Schultz the court, which had a detailed if not convoluted procedural history that delayed the matter somewhat, the court had appointed a custody expert to prepare a report.  When the report came in about 3 weeks before the final hearing date, the father's lawyer wrote to the Court requesting an adjournment so that the father can obtain his own expert, as is his right under the Rules of Court.  The mother opposed the request allegedly given the age of the matter (but probably because the report was favorable to her position).  Rather than adjourn the matter, citing "rules" regarding timing for completion of "non-dissolution" (typically family court matters regarding custody or support between unmarried litigants) matters, the judge dismissed the matter without prejudice.  This appeal ensued.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I suspect that anyone that read my last blog might think that I am against shared custody or that I believe it to be impossible.  That is not the case.  Rather, my point in that post was to address possibly bad faith requests for joint custody by those people who have historically neither spent a lot of time with the children nor did much of the actual parenting.

But shared parenting time is not an impossibility.  Supposedly, it requires parents who have the ability to communicate and cooperate.  That said, I have seen parents who cannot have a civil word with each other effectively co-parent. 

Shared parenting, by New Jersey standards, is anything between 28% (104 overnights) and 50% of the overnights with the children.  Curiously, these definitions actually stem from the child support guidelines.  When the newest iteration of the Guidelines came into being in 1997 or 1998, they had two different worksheets - a sole parenting worksheet and a shared parenting worksheet (104 overnights and over).  While non-custodial parents now got child support reductions with each overnight, the credit was greater using a shared parenting worksheet. As a result of the new guidelines, negotiations over additional overnights began, in many cases for obvious reasons.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Picture this scenario.  Parties are married - perhaps even happily - for 14  years.  They have three kids - 12, 10 and 6.  Wife has been a stay at home parent for the last 12 years. Husband is the Type A, master of the universe, over achiever type.  He works in New York City, leaving the house at 6 am and coming home at 7 p.m. The wife took the children to most of their medical and dental appointments, most of the play dates, most of the activities, attended most of the school events, etc.  Maybe the husband went to some, maybe he didn't.  Maybe the husband played his golf or tennis on the weekends - maybe he was part of the suburban shuttle taking the kids to the vast myriad of activities and sports kids are involved in - or both.  In very much of a traditional marriage, the wife was responsible for the kids and the house and the husband was responsible for making the money.  This is not meant to be a social commentary - just a description about how the parties divided the labor and defined their roles in the marriage. 

Fast forward - now the parties are getting a divorce.  A discussion of custody and parenting time has to be had.  One would be surprised about how many times I have seen the husband in these matters demanding 50-50 shared parenting with the kids, almost as if the historical status quo never happened. All too often, this demand is coupled with an attack on the wife's mental health and/or parenting abilities.  This of course leads to the obvious question - if she was so crazy/unstable/incompetent, etc. why did you leave the children in her care for the last X years?

This is not to say that shared parenting is presumptively not reasonable or in the children's best interests. But what is the genesis of the request.  Is it power, control, the desire to pay less child support, the desire to hurt the spouse for having the audacity to divorce them?  Is it a sincere belief that this is what is best for the children, whether it is or not?  Is it a combination of a realization of the time lost with the children in the past coupled with a fear of losing them completely?  Is it revisionist history and/or an exaggerated or grandiose belief regarding the person's actual involvement in the historical parenting of the children?  It is probably an amalgam of many of these things. 

The first question to ask is can the parent actually exercise the time that he is seeking?  If not, the resolution is easy.  Often in the cases, I have seen the parties go through stressful and expensive custody evaluations, with the obvious result - i.e. that the mother is recommended to be the primary custodial parent.  Custody then settles rapidly after that - with the father able to save face and say "I tried." 

That said, I have seen many parents become more involved parents after the divorce.  Maybe this was done for all of the wrong reasons.  Funny thing is that despite the reason, if their relationship with the children strengthens and their involvement increases, that may not be a bad thing either.

This blog is not meant to perpetuate stereotypes or dissuade good faith custody disputes. In fact, I have represented many fathers and have been successful in obtaining custody or shared parenting of some type for them.  On the other hand, before putting your children through a custody evaluation (or several if both parties get their own experts) and spending tens of thousands of dollars on the process, people should think long and hard about what they really want and what is really best for the children. 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, I was at a mediation where the mediator, when telling us his assessment of my client's case, said that he was creating "settlement anxiety."  I had never heard this term but what I believe was meant was that the mediator wanted the client to have "anxiety" about his/her position in order to be more likely to make compromises and settle.  If the goal is getting a settlement at all costs, I guess it makes sense - but is it fair?

In most cases, there is a "realm of reasonableness" or a range in which any settlement would be essentially fair.   Perhaps, a fair alimony figure could be between $100,000 per year and $125,000 per year.  A fair resolution could be either of those numbers and anything in the middle.  In most cases, people, with all relevant facts and acting reasonably, negotiate within the realm of reasonableness, but at either end depending on which side of the case they are on.  In that case, a mediator trying to create "settlement anxiety" will try to express the flaws in either case to get the parties to meet somewhere in the middle to achieve a result that is fair.

But what about cases where one party is negotiating within the realm of reasonableness and the other is not?  Put another way, what about cases where one party has the law and the facts pretty much on their side as to most issues and the other side is taking a position that is absurd?  In this case, should the mediator be trying to create similar "settlement anxiety" in both parties?  Add another level - what if the mediator knows that the unreasonable party will never settle the matter in a reasonable fashion?  Should the mediator pressure/create the same amount of "anxiety" in the more reasonable party just to achieve a settlement even though everyone knows it is unfair?  Should the result be settlement at all costs?  Does this type of pressure on the righteous party just to get a deal done artificially undermine a party's relationship with her counsel and experts, if just for settlement purposes, they are told that their case is weak when it is not? 

In my humble opinion, pointing out the legitimate limitations in someones case in order to help create a settlement is fair and appropriate.  On the other hand, creating artificial anxiety just to get a settlement all all costs because one party is acting unreasonably or negotiating in bad faith is not.  The system should be fair and equitable and the parties are entitled to justice.  It is neither fair nor justice to lessen a party's confidence in their case, artificially, just because the other side will never settle in a fair and reasonable manner.  That does not mean a party cannot give more ore receive less just to get a case done and move on with their life.  That is their choice.  On the other hand, they should not be manipulated just because the other side refuses to be reasonable.  And as I have said before, sometimes you just have to try a case.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are nearing trial in a case where the value of a business is at issue.  While in many cases, my personal preference would be to have my own expert, as opposed to a joint expert, in this case, because of the nature of the business and for a few other reasons, including cost, we suggested using a joint expert. The other side refused as is there right.

That said, we insisted upon a simultaneous exchange of the expert reports.  My experience has been that when one party submits a report and the other side gets to reply, there tends to be a cherry picking of the subjective aspects of the report that the like or favor them, and then go either higher or lower, as the case may be depending upon who they are representing.  For instance, while that expert on their own may have come to a different reasonable compensation (replacement compensation) or capitalization rate, two of the subjective areas impacting a business valuation determination, if they have other report, you don't often don't see them going higher or lower as the case may be, if that would negatively impact the value that their client might prefer.  In another recent case, the adverse expert's report only noted in his report errors made by the other expert that reduced value - conveniently failing to point out the other errors that would increase value - something conceded when I took his deposition.

Getting back to this case I was speaking of above, a funny thing happened.  The business owner's expert's capitalization rate was lower than the non-business owner's expert (the lower the cap rate, the higher the value and vice versa).  In addition, one expert essentially double counted something, which can be easily corrected, and when it is, the expert's respective opinions should be reasonably close.  Now there are still certain subjective assumptions where the experts were not unexpectedly more or less than the other.  In the big picture, the change in value related to these adjustments are largely immaterial.

In short, the simultaneous exchange of the reports essentially kept both experts from going to far out on a limb.  This will hopefully lead to a fair resolution because the actual spread in their opinions is not that great.  Maybe that is the way it is supposed to be.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and a contributor the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote a thought provoking post on that blog entitled "Some Free Advice About Marriage Counseling."  To read that post, click here.

Mark's post touches on the decision to get a divorce, a divorce lawyer's role (or lack thereof) in that process and the utility of marriage counseling.  I have often heard marriage counselors say that by the time that a couple got to them, it was too late, or that they went to marriage counseling for permission to get out of the marriage.  Some people go because they are trying to save face, or at least want to say that they tried when they have really checked out of the marriage long ago.  I have heard of others yet who have used the marriage counselor's office as the venue to drop the bomb about wanting/going forward with a divorce. 

In any event, Mark's post provides an interesting perspective on the issue. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and a contributor the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an excellent post on that blog entitled "The Gore Marriage:  Institution or Relationship.  To view that post, click here.

Mark thoughtfully explores whether marriage remains an institution or is simply a relationship.  In it, he discusses the historical changes in the meaning and utility of marriage. 

I, for one, was fascinated with this post, and not just because Mark is my partner.  It is simply interesting food for thought.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have recently blogged on the requirement that there be oral argument on substantive motions if it is requested.  Another requirement is that court's should hold plenary hearings (i.e. trials) when there are conflicting certifications regarding a material fact in dispute.  That requirement was made clear again in the unreported (non-precedential) decision in Marquez v. Cabrera released on July 15, 2010. 

In this case, the Property Settlement Agreement provided that the wife got to keep two pieces of real estate owned by the parties, seemingly their largest assets, while the husband remained responsible for some debt associated with the properties.  This does not seem to pass the smell test on its face, a fact not lost on the Appellate Division in its decision.  The husband moved to set aside the agreement, alleging fraud - essentially that a signature page from a different agreement was appended to the one filed with the court on the day of the divorce hearing.  Of course, the wife denied this.  There was some credence on its face to the husband's arguments given that there were two page sevens of the agreement. 

In any event, the trial court  denied the motion finding the wife more credible.  The problem there is that court are not supposed to make credibility determinations on mere certifications alone.  Rather, as noted above, if there are competing certifications, a plenary hearing must be held.  As such, the matter was reversed for a plenary hearing.  In addition, the Appellate Division held, "because the motion judge made credibility determinations and "may have a commitment to [her] findings," the plenary hearing must be conducted before a different judge." 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 As a post-script to the blog article of earlier this week, What! No Oral Argument?, a recent unreported case makes the point. In the blog, the Palombi case was addressed.  In that case, on review by the Appellate Division of a series of post-judgment orders in which the trial judge declined to grant oral argument, the appellate court upheld the decision denying oral argument. In so doing, the court held that while oral argument should usually be granted on substantive motions, where the motions, on the face of the filed documents, failed to make out a prima facie case (that is, even if the judge believed everything in the papers, they were insufficient to grant the relief requested), oral argument was not necessary.

We restated the history of the oral argument tension in New Jersey in which oral argument had been denied so often in cases in which it should be been held, and opined that while the decision may well be technically accurate, publishing the case sends an incorrect message to the bench and the practicing bar.

 

Now enter the recent case of Dehere v. Booker, decided July 13, 2010, unfortunately unpublished. In that case, the trial judge had not granted a request for oral argument. In reversing, the Appellate Division said

 

“Defendant requested oral argument when he filed his notice of motion, and he was presumptively entitled to oral argument under Rule 1:6-2(d) and Rule 5:5-4(a). See also Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 306 (App. Div. 1997) ("This was obviously a substantive motion that the parties should have been allowed to argue orally as a matter both of due process and the appearance of due process."). In addition, Rule 1:7-4 requires a court to "find the facts and state its conclusions of law . . . on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right." Unsupported conclusions are insufficient. "Rather, the trial court must state clearly its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions." Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 570 (1980). That did not happen here.

 

So, coupled with the fact that the motion judge did not carry out the responsibilities of finding facts and stating conclusions of law, a basis for the reversal was a failure to grant oral argument.

 

Unfortunately, years after the rules of court were amended to provide that oral argument should normally be granted on substantive motions, judges persist in ignoring the rules and denying a full right of hearing to litigants.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 An opinion recently rendered by the Appellate Division points out the necessity of submitting proper paperwork on motions, particularly post-judgment motions. The opinion in Palombi v. Palombi arises in the context of the denial by the motion judge to grant oral argument on motions. Oral argument is generally favored in New Jersey because by providing a platform in addition to the submitted papers with which a party may fully and completely present his or her case, it gives the court an opportunity to better flush out the issues and articulate the positions of the parties. Typically at oral argument, stipulations can be reached as to certain facts or various issues, thus leaving the court with a more focused understanding of the more important issues to be decided.

Some history of oral argument of motions is in order. In long years past, all motions in New Jersey were argued. Rarely was a motion decided in any other way, i.e., on the papers, without oral argument of counsel. However, as the court system became busier, many judges routinely denied requests for oral argument. The tension between the courts and lawyers caused by lawyers’ desires for oral argument and the courts’ desires for more expeditious methods of resolutions of issues was thought to be resolved when the rules were amended years ago to provide that in exercising discretion as to whether or not to grant oral argument, ordinarilysubstantive and non-routine discovery motions should be orally argued, and calendar and routine discovery motions should not.             

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was recently an interesting post on the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog entitled "Practical Tips for Dividing Personal Property."  Click here to read that post.

The only people who dislike dividing personal property more than family law attorneys are family court judges. 

That said, the post gives excellent and comprehensive advice for dealing with this often emotional and sometimes difficult issue.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 15, 2010, the New York Times reported on several proposed new laws affecting family law practice in New York.  One was to adopt no-fault divorce, which has long been proposed and long been opposed. At present, one still must prove fault grounds for divorce in order to get a divorce.  This has lead to protracted litigation that some have called cruel and unnecessary.  As the no-fault bill has finally passed the Senate, there is an expectation that it will also pass the assembly.

New Jersey has had no fault divorce for many years, though in actuality, it has really been prevalent for the last 4 years or so when "irreconcilable differences" were added as a cause of action.  Prior to that, the only no-fault ground was 18 month separation.  As most people did not want to wait 18 months, the majority of divorce complaint alleged "extreme cruelty" that made it unreasonable and improper to require the parties to remain married.  In many ways this was somewhat bogus because there was rarely any real testimony about the allegations other than to re-affirm that what was in the complaint was true and correct and if asked to testify about it at length, the testimony would be substantially the same. 

That said, despite telling parties not to worry about it and not to get upset about it, they almost always did (not to mention that there was no a public record of very private gripes).  As such, the other party would then file a counterclaim alleging their own version of "cruelty."  Thankfully, irreconcilable differences has in most cases done away with the need to go through the financial and emotional expense of this type of Complaint (though there are times when it is still necessary for other reasons). 

The only thing that I miss as a divorce lawyer in not reviewing the cruelty complaint and counterclaim is that it may take a little longer to really understand the dynamic between the parties that often would come out loud and clear in their initial pleadings.  That said, no-fault is still better in most cases.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today's New York Post there was an article about a Long Island woman getting jail time for her repeated interference with her ex-husband's time with the parties' children.

The article describes how the woman tried to keep the father and his daughters apart for weeks at a time and that she even falsely alleged that he groped one of his daughters.  The story goes on to say how the mother went on expletive filled tirades about the father in front of the children.  Further, she often scheduled last minute trips and events meant to frustrate parenting time.  The father was forced to either consent to not disappoint the girls and when he did not, she would berate him.  The judges stated that she. "... is a vengeful roadblock, the barbed wire standing in the way of her two daughters and their desperate dad."

All of the above acts are very typical acts of parental alienation.  In the past we have blogged about programs dealing with parental alienation and the fact that there is some consideration to adding parental alienation as a diagnosis to the next DSM.  Parental alienation syndrome is a very polarizing term because the person who coined the phrase, Dr. Richard Gardner, was self-published and the scientific bases to his conclusions were questioned.   His proposed remedies to alienation were also severe and there were a few notorious cases where his recommendations were followed by tragic results.  On the other hand, there is more and more research about parental alienation and its insidious effects.  The alleged conduct of the mother above contains some classic alienating behavior.

But what is the remedy.  We have recently blogged that the NJ Appellate Division rejected tort damages for emotional distress as a remedy. in most cases.  There are criminal statutes to prevent interference with custody orders but, anecdotally, they rarely seem to be used.  Similarly, there are court rules allowing for sanctions for interference with parenting time.  However, all too often, this becomes a he said/she said situation and court's rarely hold hearings to get to the bottom of this much less impose sanctions.  In fact, often this kind of conduct results in the appointment of a parent coordinator, often adding another level of costs even though the Appellate Division, the the recent reported case Parish v. Parish (which was my case) has made clear that parent coordinators should not be dealing with enforcement issues. 

While jail is a drastic remedy and probably not appropriate in all cases, it is refreshing to see that a judge got tough with repeated custodial interference.  Perhaps this will serve as a deterrent to others, but probably not because many people who do this feel justified and/or believe that they are protecting their children.  We can only hope. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Aaron Weems is an attorney in our Warrington (Bucks County), Pennsylvania office and editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law Blog wrote an excellent post entitled  Social Media Evidence.  We have blogged about the use of evidence from social networking sites on this blog in the recent past.  We have also noted news stories on this topic.

Aaron's topical posts discusses how evidence from social media sites turns up in family court.  We have used posts on Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and other places, as well as emails, text messages for different purposes in our case. 

People must remember that what they put on the internet may be there forever.  People must also be careful about the types of things that they put in emails and texts, where the detachment may allow people to be more bold in their statements.  Moreover, as was a problem in a recent case, while the client did not have a Facebook account, his girlfriend did and she did not hesitate to post the details about her relationship.  Needless to say, that enraged his wife and made her disbelieve many things that he said. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While perhaps it is sad to say that I am getting my family law news for the second day in a row from the New York Post, there was another article today about the Tiger Woods divorce that was food for thought.  Specifically, the story advised that Tiger and his wife may ultimately file for divorce in Sweden, Elin Nordegren's native country, in an effort to keep the details of the divorce a secret from the public.

Why would someone go through all of the trouble?  Because divorce records, like must court records, are public records open to anyone who wants to see them.  While in a blog we posted last year advised that there were new rules to protect identity theft, that only meant that certain information was to get redacted.  Other documents like Case Information Statements, custody evaluation reports and the like remain confidential.

That said, every pleading and court order is typically part of the public file.  That means, every accusation, allegation and gripe is now part of the public record.  In a recent matter, though fault grounds such as extreme cruelty and adultery usually are not often plead anymore now that we have irreconcilable differences, the wife filed a counterclaim alleging both.  This is over and above her bad mouthing her husband in the local and business community.  Aside from the fact that it elevates the risk that the parties' children will be exposed to matter, it also risks impacting the husband's livelihood - which is contrary to the wife's interests as she is seeking a healthy amount of alimony and child support. 

Another client lamented that all a prospective employer would have to do is Google his name and read about the details of his life because her appellate decision is readily available. In this case, there was little choice because the matter had to be tried and was later appealed by the spouse.

In any event, since most people don't have the option of filing for a secret divorce in Sweden, many aspects of their private life could be available for public consumption.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A question that sometimes arises is whether an attorney can agree to a settlement on behalf of their client.  In an unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division opinion released on April 13, 2010  in the case of Sweeney v. Sweeney, the court answered that question with a resounding maybe.

In this case, the wife alleged that on the night before trial, the parties' attorneys had "intense" settlement negotiations that lead to a resolution of all issues except for a section of the agreement entitled "General Mutual Releases."  On the following day, the husband appeared without his lawyer and disputed that there was a settlement.  The divorce was put through on that day but not the settlement.  Rather, the wife filed a motion for enforcement of the agreement reached between counsel.  Despite the fact that there were conflicting certifications, her motion was granted. 

The Appellate Division reversed the matter for a plenary hearing to determine whether the husband actually vested his attorney with the authority to bind him to a settlement.  Citing the general from the reported decision of Amatuzzo v. Kozmiuk, governing the scope of an attorney's authority to bind his or
her client to a settlement agreement, the Appellate Division noted:

The general rule is that unless an attorney is specifically authorized by the client to settle a case, the consent of the client is necessary. Negotiations of an attorney are not binding on the client unless the client has expressly authorized the settlement or the client's voluntary act has placed the attorney in a situation wherein a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in presuming that the attorney had authority to enter into a settlement, not just negotiations, on behalf of the client.  Thus, in private litigation, where the client by words or conduct communicated to the adverse attorney, engenders a reasonable
belief that the attorney possesses authority to conclude a settlement, the settlement may be enforced. However, the attorney's words or acts alone are insufficient to cloak the attorney with apparent authority.

So just because you think your case is settled does not mean it is really settled. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As tax day is around the corner, Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and a contributor the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote a timely post on that blog entitled "Tax Time."

In that article, Mark discusses tax deductions, tax credits and joint tax returns. 

I have previously blogged about the issue of innocent spouse relief and how the form has traps for the unwary.  Another point to make is that while the signing of indemnification agreements, allocating responsibility for information, taxes, etc. is common during a divorce, they are only enforceable as between the parties and are not binding on the IRS. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today's New York Post, there is an article by Kieran Crowley and Lorena Mongelli about a Long Island, New York law suit filed by a man to obtain the return of the engagement ring that he gave to his fiance', who had been his high school sweetheart.  Apparently, she refused to return the engagement ring and broke off the engagement after learning that he allegedly cheated on her.  She counterclaimed that she suffered from emotional distress as a result of his actions.

The judge ruled that state law allows a person to get back property that was given "in contemplation of marriage" if the marriage doesn't occur. The judge wrote that "Consequently,fault in the breakup of an engagement is irrelevant."

As noted by Apple Sulit-Peralejo in a blog post on this blog last October, the law in New Jersey regarding this issue is essentially the same.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and a contributor the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an excellent post on that blog entitled "A Divorce Negotiation Primer".

There are several points I would like to highlight:

• negotiations are confidential and cannot be introduced in court, except for very limited circumstances, but not as to the ultimate issue that is the subject of the negotiations.
• negotiation is intended to narrow issues
• at the time of trial, no one is bound by the positions taken during negotiations
• a party who negotiates backwards (for example making a demand, then increasing the demand), risks losing credibility in the negotiations and also causes their attorney to lose credibility.
• Put all issues on the table as early as possible so as not to spring new issues when settlement appears near and/or give a party false hope of settlement when the parties are not really all that close.

As usual, Mark's advice is good advice. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the years, I have seen several threats or other tactics used by one spouse to scare or control the other spouse.  Many of the oldies but goodies have come up recently.  Some are as follows

• "If you don't agree to go to mediation, it will be a war"
• The above is often coupled with, "I will only go to mediation, but not with attorneys" or "but not if you hire an attorney"
• "I was going to give you everything, but now that you hired an attorney, I will give you nothing"
• You will be homeless if you proceed with the divorce
• "The kids and I will enjoy the same lifestyle but I don't intend on supporting you"
• "I can afford to pay support or equitable distribution but not both"
• "All of the stocks and bonds are mine because I earned the money"
• "I will take the kids from you if you divorce me"
• "I will tell everyone about your _________________ (insert indiscretion or problem here) if you proceed with the divorce
• The preceding is often coupled with, "After I tell everyone, no one will want to talk to you"
• "You will be all alone" 
• "The kids wont want to live with you"

These are just a few of many threats that I have heard clients tell me over the year.  Typically, the controlling spouse does not want to lose control, either in marriage or in divorce.  Often, the controlling spouse has used these type of mind games during the marriage to get what they want.  Some litigant's buckle under these types of threats and stay in a bad situation, often giving their spouse to do divorce planning to set things up for a time when they are ready to proceed with a divorce. 

The bottom line is that everyone is entitled to effective and competent representation.  There is nothing wrong with going to mediation with counsel (or at least with counsel retained to advise you through the process even if they are not present). Someone who would give everything if you don't get an attorney, or who promises a war if you get attorney, is most likely seeking to use the threats and imbalance of power to get a deal that is extremely favorable to them self and unfavorable to the other person. Marital fault rarely means anything other than providing a cause of action for divorce. 

If you hear these threats, stay strong and speak to your attorney about the best way to deal with them.  In addition, get support from your therapist,  family and/or friends so that you have some one, in addition to your attorney, to lean on in the face of these tactics.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent case was filed concerning a woman who entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement with her then husband in which the marital home was not to be sold immediately, but provided for how the proceeds would be distributed when it was. The Husband, however, was in poor health, and the agreement did not provide for the possible event of his death prior to sale of the home. In fact, the husband died prior to the sale of the house, but after the limited divorce that the couple had obtained .  His interest in the house went to his estate rather than to his former wife as she had anticipated. The former wife was then forced to purchase the half interest from the estate in order to retain the home, something that was not anticipated by her, and cost her a significant amount of money.

I am sure that the former wife assumed that the deed to her home contained a right of survivorship in the event of her former husband’s death. Instead,  the property was most likely titled in such a way that the parties owned the property as tenants by the entirety, which means that they owned as husband and wife, and upon the death of one spouse  title of the property would go to other, assuming they were still married. Upon the divorce of parties to a tenancy by the entirety,  however, the title changes to what is known as a tenancy in common, which means that they each had a one half interest in the property which would then go to their beneficiaries upon death unless there is a specified right of survivorship.

 

The moral of this story? Make sure your lawyer has a copy of your deed as well as any other important documents.   If you do not have one, make sure that a title search is conducted on the property.   It is critical that a lawyer understand how property is held between spouses and/or other co-owners. Many times, incorrect assumptions are made about these kinds of issues and the results can be expensive. My motto is, I can never have to much information from my client.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In February 2009, I posted a blog entry entitled "The Madoff Mess Hits the DIvorce Court."  In this case, in June 2006, the parties agreed to evenly split the $5.4 million in an account they had with Madoff Securities. As a result, the husband gave the wife $2.7 million in cash, and retained the account. As a result of the Madoff Ponzi scheme that has essentially rendered the account worthless, the husband filed suit seeking the $2.7 million that he paid the wife. The husband (a prominent attorney with a large NY law firm) alleged that because the account turned out to be valueless, the spirit of the agreement was broken. The wife's position was that the husband withdrew probably $3 million to pay the wife, so the asset did exist at the time of the settlement agreement. In December 2009, I blogged on the decision  which was in the wife's favor, essentially because the husband could have redeemed the account for the agreed upon value from the time of the divorce up to the Madoff collapse. 

Based upon this blog entry, I was interviewed about this case by Mark S. Gottlieb, CPA for a podcast on his website.  Mark is a forensic accountant and business valuation expert with offices in Great Neck, New York, Stamford, Connecticut and Roseland, New Jersey.

To listen to the podcast, click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we recently learned from the Fawzy case that we blogged on, parties have a right to private ordering and self determination of how they want to resolve their cases.  In Fawzy, the NJ Supreme Court held that people could arbitrate custody matters as long as certain procedural measures were taken.

Can people decide to submit an issue to an expert for a binding determination?  On March 10, 2010, in an unreported (non-precedential) decision issued by the Appellate Division in the case of Cully v. Cully, the question was answered affirmatively.

In this case, post-judgment litigation occur ed over the correct interpretation of a Property Settlement Agreement, more specifically, the correct form of a QDRO (the mechanism to divide an ERISA controlled retirement asset).  The judge suggested that the parties could elect to have a QDRO expert
review both parties' QDROs and decide which QDRO is acceptable. The parties would split the expert's fee, and the loser would reimburse the other party for counsel's fees. The parties adopted the judge's suggestion and agreed to be bound by the expert's determination.

With certain modifications, the expert suggested adoption of the husband's form of QDRO and it was ultimately entered as an Order of the Court.  The wife appealed arguing that the court should have held a hearing on the parties intent since the language in their Property Settlement Agreement was not entirely clear.

The Appellate Division affirmed the decision finding that the since the wife's attorney advocated for and agreed to a binding determination by the expert, the wife could not then object when the decision did not go in her favor.  In fact, the Appellate Division specifically stated:

Our judicial process's integrity would be damaged if defendant received a second bite at the apple because she is disappointed that the process, which her counsel agreed to and advocated for, resulted in a decision unfavorable to her.  Both the doctrines of invited error and judicial estoppel bar this court from considering defendant's claims regarding the trial court's decision to accept Ms. DeFuccio's determination in this esoteric area of family law.

There are several lesson here.  (1) When you agree to submit a matter for a binding determination, you are stuck with that decision. (2) When you are dealing with the division of pensions, and there is any possibility for different interpretations/ways to divide it, it may make sense to hire the QDRO expert before the settlement so that the correct language is in the PSA; (3) in a similar vein, if possible, have the QDRO signed the same day that the divorce is entered.  Here, it appears as perhaps imprecise drafting was the problem.  Moreover, if the issue ultimately required a determination of intent, the decision to allow an expert, or anyone for that matter, to make a binding determination without first determining what the intent was, is a curious one.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously we blogged on alternate dispute resolution methods ("ADR") such as mediation and arbitration. "Collaborative Divorce" is another ADR method.

"Collaborative Divorce" is defined as  a form of alternative dispute resolution for divorcing couples where a  team approach is used to reach a settlement. Both parties to the divorce are supported by their lawyers; however, they work cooperatively with their spouse.  The collaborative process uses informal discussions and conferences attended by both spouses and their attorneys to settle all issues. The collaborative process is premised upon an atmosphere of honesty, cooperation, integrity, and professionalism. It requires that both spouses, with the assistance of their attorneys, provide all pertinent documents and information relating to the issues to be settled. In the event that experts are necessary, it encourages the use of jointly retained experts. Both spouses and attorneys are required to work together toward a shared resolution that is geared toward the future well being of the family. If the parties cannot reach a settlement through the collaborative process approach, the collaborative lawyers withdraw from the case and the parties then retain trial attorneys to pursue the matter in court.

Is collaborative divorce for everyone? I am a divorce litigator and people often come to me with complex, high conflict and/or high stakes cases so perhaps I am biased in that regard. Even still, I cannot see collaborative divorce being for everyone to be used in every case. Just as I wrote about my concerns about mediation, i.e. the possibility of a spouse taking advantage of an imbalance of power; the settle at all costs posture whether the resolution is fair to both parties or not; etc., I think that those pitfalls are just as possible in collaborative divorce.

For instance, I recently heard of a divorce case described as "freakish". At the same time, the husband was described as a "power broker" and the wife was a housewife with a young child. Most confusing was the revelation that the parties were involved in a "collaborative divorce."

To me, this sounded like a recipe for disaster. How can a "freakish" divorce be collaborative? If both parties are "power brokers" perhaps collaboration could work though it seems like both would want to "win." Collaboration seems unlikely when one party is a "power broker" and the other is not - capitulation seems more likely than collaboration. Ever wonder why the more powerful spouse wants to mediate?

Perhaps for a garden variety divorce with two reasonable people, this can work. In most other cases, it seems that the interests of the weaker party could be compromised. 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have all heard stories about spouses hiding assets to keep them away from the other spouse during a divorce.  In fact, I am sure that many lawyers have even had clients ask how they can do it.  Hopefully, the lawyer told them the straight answer -don't do it - and if you do and get caught, it will be far worse for you. 

A litigant named Eric Barzda learned this the hard way as noted in the unreported decision (non precedential) Appellate Division decision released on March 3, 2010.

In this case, in 1996, Mr. Barzda was  was going through a divorce proceedings with his former wife.  While the divorce  was pending and even thereafter, he feared that his wife would assert a claim against property in Hightstown he acquired with his girlfriend, the defendant in this matter.  In order to  shield this property from a claim from his wife, he transferred his interest in the property to the girlfriend for $1.  However, he claimed that there was an oral agreement that he would be a silent partner.  He later filed for bankruptcy relief and did not list this property as owned by him in the bankruptcy - obtaining a discharge in what was deemed a no asset case.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As tax season is upon is, the issue of whether to file joint returns is upon us as well.  i previously blogged about the topic of innocent spouse relief and the fact that the innocent spouse form that the IRS has published for those seeking innocent spouse status has many traps for the unwary. 

Today, I read an interesting article by the accounting firm Smolin Lupin "Spouses are Guilty Until Proven Innocent - Tax Liability Shared by Both." 

The article reminds that you are generally liable for paying the tax due, plus interest and any penalties. Moreover, even if the income and/or unreporting is attributable to your spouse, since the filing of a joint return creates joins and several liability, your wages can be seized by the IRS.

The article further reminds that one may qualify for "innocent spouse" relief if that taxpayer can prove:

• There is a substantial understatement of tax attributable to the grossly erroneous items of your spouse or ex-spouse.
• The hidden income belonged to your ex-spouse and you didn't benefit from it.
• You didn't know or have reason to know about the understatement.
• It would be inequitable to hold you liable.

The article closes with the following excellent piece of advice:

Don't count on innocent spouse relief if you know your spouse is cheating. Consider filing separate tax returns -- especially if you're in the process of a divorce. It may save you a bundle in the future.
 

As noted in my prior entry on this topic, since the innocent spouse form has to be signed under penalty of perjury, a wrong answer not only could preclude granting of Innocent Spouse Relief, but also could be used to assert - if not prove - tax fraud given a person's knowledge and involvement when the returns were filed.  As such, the bottom line is that great care should be taken when completing this form. A person seeking to do so should consult with an attorney and tax advisor, in advance, so as to not incriminate themself.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Almost two years ago, in fact, one of the first blog posts even on this blog, I authored a post entitled "All Cases Have a Life of their Own." I just finished a case this week that gave me reason to think about this post again. 

In this case, one party just didn't want to get a divorce.  It did not make a difference that the other spouse made clear in no uncertain terms that the divorce was going to happen.  In fact, because the spouse asked the other to reconcile every single day, knowing that it would upset the other spouse, that spouse heard every day that the marriage was over.  Even the children's therapist advised that that spouse should move out given the impact of that spouse's continued presence on the children, etc.  Nothing sunk in.  Eventually, the finality of the trial date, in fact on the trial date, did the matter finally settle, but not without several last ditch attempts not to proceed with the divorce.  The real shame is that substantial fees had to be incurred to prepare for trial - an unavoidable problem because one spouse held out hope for reconciliation until the bitter end.

I have another matter, where a spouse is refusing to make settlement proposal but is demanding a settlement conference.  It seems clear that the desire is to get the other spouse in a room to bully that spouse into a settlement or otherwise because there is the expectation that the other spouse will capitulate just as always occur ed during the marriage.

Some spouses refuses to provide discovery or comply with others, hoping to wear the other spouse down.

The bottom line is that hopefully the put upon spouse will stay strong and not fall prey to the other parties unreasonable if not bad faith conduct.  More importantly, hopeful the Court's will protect that party with a fair and generous award of counsel fees.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today's New York Daily News, there was an article that actress Kate Walsh and her husband are going to flip a coin to determine who gets to pick first and then they will alternate picks as they divide their personal property in divorce.

You don't have to be a celebrity to follow the alternate selection method.  In fact it is very common when people cannot mutually agree upon a distribution of their furniture, furnishings and personal property.  Another method sometimes used is that one spouse makes two ostensibly equal lists of the personal property and the other spouse gets to choose which list they want.  There are obviously many other ways to accomplish this as well.  There are no absolute rules, other than perhaps, the custodial parent will get the children's furniture. 

Perhaps the only other absolute rule is that judges (and attorneys) hate getting involved in this type of dispute. 

Of course, that is not to say that there cannot be disputes about valuable items like furs, jewelry, art, antiques, collections, etc.  That, however, is very different than ordinary furnishings and household items that tend to have little value once you bring them home.

So if you are divorcing and cannot agree on the distribution of the furniture, etc., you too can act like a celebrity, flip and coin and alternate picking until it is all gone.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 3, 2010, the Appellate Division issued a reported (precedential) opinion in the case of Parish v. Parish.  This case is near and dear to me because I represent Mr. Parish and we made new law. 

In this post-judgment litigation we filed a motion seeking enforcement of the parties' divorce agreement because the ex-wife interfered with his parenting time with the children and to fix a parenting schedule for the next several months. The schedule was supposed to be arrived at with the assistance of a parenting coordinator but the issuance of a domestic violence temporary restraining order against Mr. Parish's ex-wife delayed that process. After the restraining order was dismissed, the parties went to the parent coordinator who made recommendations prior to the return date of the motion. Mr. Parish agreed with them - he ex-wife would not state if she agreed or not, waiting to see what the court would do.

The trial court denied Mr. Parish's motion as moot, ordered the parties back to the parent coordinator to deal with the issues in the motion and required that the parties attend settlement conferences before filing any future motions, even enforcement motions.

We appealed arguing that (1) the trial court unconstitutionally impaired Mr. Parish's access to the Court and (2) the court improperly abdicated its responsibility to a parent coordinator who cannot, by Supreme Court directive, address enforcement issues in any event.

The Appellate Division agreed in a 2-1 decision. In doing so, they crafted new requirements before a family part litigant's access to the Court can be restricted.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, I blogged on the Appellate Division's reported (precedential) decision in Kay v. Kay.  The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Certification and the decision was rendered on January 6, 2010.  In a per curiam decision (i.e. no one specific Supreme Court Justice authored the opinion), the Appellate Division decision was affirmed for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Grall's appellate opinion.

To reiterate what this case is about, the Appellate Division held that when the estate of a spouse who died while an action for divorce is pending presents a claim for equitable relief related to marital property, the court may not refuse to consider the equities arising from the facts of that case solely on the ground that the estate may not assert equitable claims against the marital estate sounding in constructive trust, resulting trust, quasicontract or unjust enrichment. In that case, the husband died basically penniless and the wife had assets in excess of $650,000 at the time.

The Appellate Division and now Supreme Court held that when the estate of a spouse who died while an action for divorce is pending presents a claim for equitable relief related to marital property, the court may not refuse to consider the equities arising from the facts of that case solely on the ground that the estate may not assert equitable claims against the marital estate sounding in constructive trust, resulting trust, quasicontract or unjust enrichment. This case rejects the holding in Krudzlo v. Krudzlo, a reported trial court opinion from 1990.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, I blogged on the Appellate Division's reported (precedential) decision in Kay v. Kay.  The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Certification and the New Jersey Judiciary web site advises that the decision will be released on January 6, 2010.  

To reiterate what this case is about, the Appellate Division held that when the estate of a spouse who died while an action for divorce is pending presents a claim for equitable relief related to marital property, the court may not refuse to consider the equities arising from the facts of that case solely on the ground that the estate may not assert equitable claims against the marital estate sounding in constructive trust, resulting trust, quasicontract or unjust enrichment. In that case, the husband died basically penniless and the wife had assets in excess of $650,000 at the time.
 

Check back soon for a post on the Supreme Court's decision.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, I posted a blog entry on the phenomena of the New Years resolution divorce.  Apparently, I am not alone in thinking about this topic at this time of year as my article was quoted in one written by Tony Bertolino who is a Texas attorney.

Whether this is from the sadness many people experience over the holidays or the desire for a fresh start or a better life, it is sadly real. 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the years, I have noted that the number of new clients spikes a few times of the year, but most significantly right after the new year.  Out of curiosity, I typed "New Years Resolution Divorce" into Google and got 540,000 results in .29 seconds.  While not all of the search results were on point, many were extremely interesting.  It turns out that my intuition about this topic was right and that there are several reasons for it.

One article on Salon.com put divorce up there with weight loss on New Years resolution lists. Also cited in this article was that affairs are often discovered around the holidays.  Another article linked above attributed it to "new year, new life".  Another article claimed that the holidays create a lot of pressures at the end of the year that combine to put stress on people in unhappy or weak relationships.  Family, financial woes, etc. associated with the holidays add to the stress.  Turning over a new leaf to start over and improve ones life was another reason given.  This seems to be a logical explanation for a clearly difficult and perhaps heart wrenching decision.

In my experience, people with children often want to wait until after the holidays for the sake of the children.  There is also the hope, perhaps overly optimistic, that the divorce will be completed by the beginning of the next school year.  These people tend to be in the "improving ones life" camp. 

So as divorce lawyers, we hope to avoid or at least resolve in advance the holiday visitation disputes that inevitably crop up, then relax and enjoy the holiday as we await the busy season to begin. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Almost a full 99% of matrimonial cases in New Jersey settle without the necessity of a trial. The settlement can take two forms – oral or in writing -- and the methods for recognizing those settlement “on the record” of the case are three – reading the settlement into the record; attaching a written settlement to the judgment of divorce; or incorporating the written agreement “by reference.” 

Oral Agreements

A settlement may be oral, that is, the terms may not be reduced to writing. Usually, these types of settlements happen “on the courthouse steps,” that is, are achieved after (and in conjunction with) an appearance before an early settlement panel or other court appearance, such as an intensive settlement conference with a judge. Many times, for one reason or another, an attorney or both attorneys will want to reduce the agreement to writing. This is usually because an oral settlement is “barebones” and its coverage almost always is not as extensive as a written agreement. Too, almost always, an oral “agreement” achieved in this manner is not considered binding if and until reduced to writing, approved as to form and substance by both the attorneys and the litigants, and signed by the litigants. On the other hand, experienced attorneys know that there is a good chance that a settlement may well “fall apart” if not made binding right then and there. In the latter case, the parties will “put through” an uncontested divorce on the same day as achieving the settlement, in which case, the agreement is “spread upon the record” by one of the attorneys reading all of the provisions to the judge while a tape recording of the oral presentation is being made. One of the attorneys will thereafter order the transcript and prepare the judgment of divorce to include all of the provisions based upon the transcript. Experience also shows that notwithstanding the making of a verbatim transcript, this method may lead to disagreements as to the finer points of such an arrangement.

Written Agreements

Written agreements generally come about in the following manner: a non-binding oral understanding is reached either in a private settlement conference or at a court appearance (as described above), and thereafter, one of the attorneys prepares a written agreement based on the structure of the settlement. In so doing, the preparer usually fills in some details which may not have been discussed. After a period of haggling and revisions, a final version is usually achieved, approved by the attorneys and the litigants, and signed by the litigants, at which time it usually becomes binding.

Then, the agreement can be incorporated into the record in one of two ways: either attaching a copy to the judgment of divorce, or incorporating it by reference. Using either method, at the final uncontested “put through” hearing, the parties testify as to the grounds for divorce as well as their voluntarily entry into the agreement. At that point, the judge makes a finding that the grounds for divorce have been satisfied under the statute and that the parties have voluntarily entered into the agreement. Note that the procedure in New Jersey does not provide for the judge to “approve” the substance of the agreement – for if he or she were to do that, it would require a timely hearing as to the merits. Now, one of two things can happen: (1) the agreement can be attached to the judgment, in which case, the agreement along with the judgment become a public record available for public inspection; or (2) it can be incorporated by reference, that is, the judgment can recite that the agreement was marked into evidence and is incorporated into the judgment and made apart thereof as if attached thereto or set forth at length therein. The obvious advantage of this latter method is that while the judgment becomes a public record, the terms of the agreement remain private.

Conclusion

The method to be utilized in any case is always an issue for attorney judgment based on many factors. However, as a general matter, if the case is uncomplicated and the oral agreement sufficiently comprehensive, and if there is a fear that the agreement will fall apart if not “locked in” at the time of the making, it may well be appropriate to spread the oral agreement on the record. On the other hand, in a more complex matter, it is almost always preferable to have all of the “i’s” dotted and “t’s” crossed by reducing it to a full-blown agreement, in which case, in these days of information theft, it is the more usual practice to have it incorporated by reference.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In February, I wrote a blog entitled Madoff Mess Hits Divorce Court..  In this case, in June 2006, the parties agreed to evenly split the $5.4 million in an account they had with Madoff Securities. As a result, the husband gave the wife $2.7 million in cash, and retained the account. As a result of the Madoff Ponzi scheme that has essentially rendered the account worthless, the husband has filed suit seeking the $2.7 million that he paid the wife. The husband (a prominent attorney with a large NY law firm) alleged that because the account turned out to be valueless, the spirit of the agreement was broken.  The wife's position was the husband withdrew probably $3 million to pay the wife, so the asset did exist at the time of the settlement agreement.

The decision was reported last week and the husband lost.  Acting New York State Supreme Court acting Justice Saralee Evans decided that the husband is stuck with his decision to keep the account instead of withdrawing his money before the December 2008 collapse of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.  The Justice noted that while the husband claimed the Madoff account held no assets, he did not allege it had no value.  Key to the decision was that in 2006 and "the several years after that plaintiff maintained this investment," the account "could have been redeemed for cash, presumably significantly in excess of its 2004 value." In addition, the Justice held that "An investor's ability to redeem an account for value, was the assumption on which the parties relied in dividing their property and in doing so they made no mistake."

The public policy of the finality of settlements was upheld.  Whether is is ultimately fair since the asset may not have really existed is another story.  It is different than retaining a stock account and then the market goes up or down because in that instance, there really was an asset as opposed to a fictional asset.  It is also different than holding on to a home whose value has decreased, as I have blogged on before.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When a client comes in for a first meeting for a divorce consultation, it is often when things at home has reached a crisis whether it be financial, or something having to do with the children. Although a divorce, start to finish, can last more than a year in the Courts, there are remedies available to assist  litigants with more immediate issues that come up. 

After an initial complaint for divorce is filed and served, litigants can proceed to Court on a Motion for an Order regarding those issues which need to be resolved pending the end of the case.  These may include interim custody, spousal and child support, restraints against asset dissipation, insurance coverage, payment of counsel fees, etc. In divorce cases, this is known as a “pendente lite Motion.” Some cases do not require pendente lite Motions while other cases may require numerous pendente lite Motions. A Motion is made up of Certifications (the same thing as an Affidavit) from you and the opposing party and oral argument by your attorney and the opposing attorney; sometimes, legal briefs are also filed with the Motion. Often, your attorney will have very little time within which to respond to a Motion or Cross-Motion filed by the other side. After these papers have been filed, the case is usually then heard by a judge on a Friday at what is known as “oral argument.” This is when the attorneys go to Court to argue the motion, but the litigant will not testify. By their very nature, pendente lite motions are not an exact science as they are usually filed before there has been substantial discovery of all the information necessary to make a final decision. However, they are a way to obtain relief from the Court in a short time period and the issues can be revisited when appropriate as information comes through.
 

If a true emergency exists, your attorney may recommend the filing of an “Order to Show Cause” which can be heard by the Court the same day as it is filed; however, there will thereafter be a “return date” for another oral argument to give the opposing party a chance to file papers and argue their side.  

It bears mentioning of course, that not all cases require a pendente lite Motion. In some cases, the attorneys can work out the issues between themselves with their clients’ assistance. It is often better to reach an amicable resolution of your issues than to file a Motion, as it is generally less costly both in terms of fees and emotions

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have blogged several times about the celebrity divorces that have been in the news, from John & Kate, to Christie Brinkley, to Stephanie Seymour, to Jim Nantz, to the McCourts who own the LA Dodgers and others.

Every day for the last few weeks, Tiger Woods has been front page news regarding what he first called "indiscretions" and now calls "infidelity."  We have heard in the news about potential sweeteners to his prenuptial agreement if his wife stays, to rumors that she will leave him and so on .  Obviously, since the information from Tiger and his wife is limited, people are left to speculate and gossip.

 As a New Jersey Divorce Lawyer, the best that I can offer is to give some comments on how New Jersey divorce and family law would apply to the facts (hypothetical, speculation or true facts that have been reported). 

In New Jersey, marital fault is largely irrelevant except in limited circumstances.  Though not particularly necessary anymore since we have no fault (irreconcilable differences) divorce, the fault ground of adultery can still be plead as a divorce cause of action.  That said, receiving a divorce based on adultery does not get you anything more financially.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the years, I have noted that the number of new clients spikes a few times of the year, but most significantly right after the new year.  Out of curiosity, I typed "New Years Resolution Divorce" into Google and got 540,000 results in .29 seconds.  While not all of the search results were on point, many were extremely interesting.  It turns out that my intuition about this topic was right and that there are several reasons for it.

One article on Salon.com put divorce up there with weight loss on New Years resolution lists. Also cited in this article was that affairs are often discovered around the holidays.  Another article linked above attributed it to "new year, new life".  Another article claimed that the holidays create a lot of pressures at the end of the year that combine to put stress on people in unhappy or weak relationships.  Family, financial woes, etc. associated with the holidays add to the stress.  Turning over a new leaf to start over and improve ones life was another reason given.  This seems to be a logical explanation for a clearly difficult and perhaps heart wrenching decision.

In my experience, people with children often want to wait until after the holidays for the sake of the children.  There is also the hope, perhaps overly optimistic, that the divorce will be completed by the beginning of the next school year.  These people tend to be in the "improving ones life" camp. 

So as divorce lawyers, we hope to avoid or at least resolve in advance the holiday visitation disputes that inevitably crop up, then relax and enjoy the holiday as we await the busy season to begin. 

 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New Jersey is one of the few states in the country that still requires divorced parents to pay for their children's higher educations.  The term "divorced parents" is highlighted because married parents do not have the same obligation to pay for their children's college education if they choose not to do so.  This distinction has lead some to argue that New Jersey's laws are unconstitutional.  That is the topic for another day.

That said, the answer to the questions posed in the title of this post is maybe.  That is, parents of divorced children may not only have to contribute to their children's college educations, but graduate school as well.

That was one of the topics of an unreported (non-precedential) case decided by the Appellate Division on December 10, 2009.  Specifically, in the case of Mulcahey v. Melici, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision not to emancipate the parties' child who had graduated from college, require the payment of child support to continue and requiring the payment of graduate school expenses.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In New Jersey, in a family court matter, if a party’s position is unreasonable or taken in bad faith, the other party can seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees. This was the case in the recent unpublished decision of Ramirez v. Ramirez, New Jersey App. Div., Docket No. A-2035-08T32035-08T3, November 24, 2009. 

 In Ramirez, the parties were divorced by a Dual Final Judgment of Divorce entered on January 29, 2007, which incorporated a settlement agreement. Following the divorce, in three separate motions, plaintiff persisted in seeking a re-calculation of defendant's income based upon allegations and documentation relating to circumstances that existed for several years prior to their 2007 divorce. In his December 21, 2007, decision the judge put plaintiff on notice that she had failed to establish a change in circumstances. Nonetheless, plaintiff filed a cross-motion in August 2008 and a motion for reconsideration on October 6, 2008, both of which continued to seek the same relief based upon the same allegations. As a result, defendant was compelled to incur "unnecessary costs" for which he is entitled to be reimbursed. Under these circumstances, the judge awarded and the Appellate Division affirmed the counsel fees awarded to defendant.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have a matter now that will likely go to trial in the early part of the new year.  It appears inevitable. 

Sometimes there are just those cases where a client is put in the impossible position of having to make a "Hobson's choice" accepting a patently unfair or otherwise unpalatable settlement or taking their chances at trial.  I am not talking about accepting a deal that is on the low end of the "realm of reason" or agreeing to a little more or a little less in parenting time.  Rather, in order to get the case over with and "stop the bleeding", they have faced with the proposition of having to take less than is reasonable or agree to more/less parenting time then is fair, appropriate and/or in the best interests of the children. 

One can only hope that if the choice is trial, that the judge will see that the other side is simply not reasonable.  In that case, the hope is that the trial judge will make a generous award of counsel fees to make the oppressed party whole, or close to it, for having deal with unreasonable positions, etc.  I had a trial last year where the husband refused to negotiate, at ll.  He sought alimony, without basis, and made us try every single issue, including the exemption of clearly premarital property, the exemption of clearly post complaint property, even the exemption of the engagement ring.  In that case, even though my client earned far more than her husband, she was awarded a generous counsel fees. 

Again, she had no choice but to try the case.  Unfortunately, that appears to be the case for my current client if the choice is made by the client to fight for what she is entitled to.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since they have been in the news a lot lately, I have bloged a lot recently on celebrity divorces, be it John & Kate, Stephanie Seymour or Jim Nantz.  That is why the article from Billy Witz that recently appeared in the New York Times about the divorce of Frank McCourt and Jamie McCourt, the owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers got my attention.

Both parties claim to own the team - though Frank claims to be the sole owner.  Both worked for the team until recently, when Jamie was fired.  As a sign of the war to come, Jamie's lawyers budgeted her legal fees for this matter to be $2 million.  Per the article, the central issue is as follows:

"The key legal issue is whether the Dodgers are considered the McCourts’ community property. Under California law, a couple’s assets are split 50-50 unless a written agreement states otherwise. Shortly after buying the Dodgers, the McCourts put the team in Frank’s name and all their property in Jamie’s name to protect the homes from potential creditors. One of her lawyers, Michael Kump, said they would challenge the validity of the postnuptial agreement.

If the agreement is not valid, Fisher said, the McCourts would probably be forced to sell, as John Moores did with the San Diego Padres when he divorced."
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Connecticut seems to be the hotbed of celebrity divorces these days. 

Yesterday's news reported that model Stephanie Seymour will have to make due on $270,000 per month in temporary support while her case is pending.  The news accounts report that her husband nets $1.5 million per month making this appear to be a veritable drop in the bucket.

Today's new reports that sportscaster Jim Nantz has to pay his wife $72,000 per month in permanent alimony plus $1,000 per week in child support.  This is a substantial amount if his income is $3.2 million as noted in one place but not so much if his income is $7 million as reported in other places. 

Aside from a look into the lives of the rich and famous, this shows another thing - that is, divorce can be a very public airing of very private matters.  While perhaps it may be more noteworthy for celebrities, even much of regular people's divorce can become part of the public record.  While it is not possible to completely avoid this, treating each other in a dignified and fair manner and settling issues is a way to help keep things out of the public record. 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a divorce lawyer, I follow with interest the high profile divorces when they are in the news.  There were actually three in yesterday and  today's papers, John & Kate, Christie Brinkley and Peter Cooke and Stephanie Seymour. 

If the news accounts of the allegations are correct, then the news of the last few days included one party wiping out a large bank account and leaving the other with little cash; the other party in the same case not allowing the spouse to share in the children's birthday party; failure to timely turn over a passport so that a child could attend a school trip being chaperoned by the other parent; and the destruction of art work in the family home.  A few weeks ago, one of the combatants was quoted about how he "despised" the other spouse.  Even if you think that, why do you say it, especially in the press, no less.

These kind of things happen every day in divorces that don't make the news.  That does not make it right. The process is difficult enough for the parties and their children without having to deal with aberrant, aggressive or hateful conduct.  When it clearly happens, the conduct usually blows up in the face of the perpetrator.

Having represented a few professional athletes and celebrities or their spouses in the past, it is fascinating how these things play out in the press. I wonder, with disbelief, especially now that the Internet provides a record of everything, why certain dirty laundry is aired in such a public way where the kids (or their friend, classmates, etc.) may be able to see it either now or in the future. Some of this may be unavoidable because most divorce filings are public records available for anyone to see. That said, one wonders if there is not a better way.  Is the prolonging of the 15 minutes of fame worth it?. 
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today I came across a blog entry by a divorce mediator which was nothing short of an attack on "best lawyers."  It appeared as though the ills of the divorce world were placed at the feet of the best divorce lawyers. Lawyers were castigated for such sins as discovery (obtaining financial documents) and seeking court assistance when you want temporary support or time with the children. He said that any lawyer can get the same result and that hiring a good lawyer sets the client up for a racket that is in the lawyer's best interests, but not the client's.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have seen attacks on lawyers from the mediation community.  There appears to be a turf war.  Either you are mediation friendly, or you are not.    Rather than recognizing that some cases are more amenable to mediation than others, the followers would rather attack the "non believers."  

While I agree that most cases will settle, many cases take a fair amount of discovery and litigation to get there. To believe otherwise is simply naive. 

Further, while mediation is not for everyone, it is a useful tool in many cases, Then again, just as not all attorneys are alike, neither are all mediators.  In fact, I suspect that the author of the blog that I read would agree that not every mediator can get the same result - though he says that any lawyer can. 

In a prior blog from May 2009, I wondered whether the mediator's goal was a fair settlement or just a settlement.  To see another blog post on mediation that I authored, click here.  Are parties, often the woman being protected from the imbalance of power that permeated the marriage?  Are people being told of their rights when they appear at mediation without lawyers?  What efforts are made to ensure full and accurate disclosure?  Are the appropriate appraisals being done at all, and when done, are they being challenged and scrutinized to make sure that they are fair and accurate? 

There is no doubt that mediation and other methods of alternate dispute resolution can be a good thing. That said, I have often seen mediations result in a "settlement", but one where the disadvantaged spouse got a "deal" that was neither fair nor reasonable, if not unconscionable. The problem in these cases is that often, once there is an "agreement", the person that got the great deal refuses to concede anything. Thus, a method meant to avoid litigation can often create litigation.  Many of these deals came from the "best mediators." 

That said, rather than attacking lawyers, mediators should recognize that there is a place for the best attorneys and the best mediators.  I posit that the best and most fair mediated settlements will result from the attorneys and mediators working together rather than attacking each other.  I am sure that we can all agree that a fully informed settlement, where both parties interests are fully protected, is optimum. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Driving around town this weekend, I saw many lawn signs, like those you would see for a political candidate, advertising a "Free Divorce Seminar." The old adage, "you get what you paid for" comes to mind. 

While I am aware of the phenomena of these "seminars" over the last several years, putting aside potential conflict of interest issues that could perhaps be created, is this the type of thing that one contemplating a divorce should be attending?  Or rather, should a person schedule an honest to goodness divorce consultation with an attorney to which they have been referred or otherwise have researched? 

There is no privacy or anonymity at the seminar - you may see neighbors, parents of your children's classmates, etc.  There is no confidentiality or privilege at a seminar.  You have these things at an initial consultation. 

You cannot ask confidential questions at a seminar; maybe you cannot ask questions at all (and the smart attorney probably would not take questions for risk of prematurely creating an attorney client relationship.)  You cannot show the attorney any pertinent document for the same reason.  And how can you develop a rapport with a speaker at a seminar?  The seminar can never be tailored to your special circumstances because one size never fits all. At a seminar, you cannot really probe the presenter's experience, depth of staff and other resources of the firm, ability to commit to your case, etc. 

At the end of the day, a one-on-one consultation, even if you have to pay for it, will be far more worthwhile to protect your dignity and get the attention and information you deserve.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A common misconception in New Jersey is that both spouses can use the same attorney for their divorce.  My local paper recently had an article about divorces in the current economy.  One attorney was quoted as intimating that this was true; the attorney was speaking of uncontested divorces in which the parties agree on issues and the seek the dissolution of their marriage. While I am certain that the attorney’s comments were taken out of context, as one of the points in the article was a concern about legal fees, this is a question that comes to me often.  A client will ask me if I can represent both spouses, even if they have an agreement.  The answer is a resounding, no.

 

The ethics rules in our state are very clear that one attorney cannot represent both spouses in a divorce.   Simply, it is a conflict of interest.  The New Jersey Supreme Court has said on many occasions, that “one of the most basic responsibilities incumbent on a lawyer is the duty of loyalty to his or her clients. From that duty issues the prohibition against representing clients with conflicting interests."( In re Opinion No. 653 of the Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, 132 N.J. 124, 129 (1993)).  Our state has a very strong policy in which there should not be even an “appearance” of a possible conflict of interest.  This is to protect the clients.

 

Imagine a scenario in which one spouse has been home raising children, and the other has been working throughout a twenty year marriage.  This is a situation in which alimony will be an issue.  Certainly, the non working spouse and the working spouse may have differing positions about the amount and term of alimony. Most people agree that in these circumstances, the parties will want to have their own attorneys.  But what about the situations where both parties are working, and they have a house and a couple of retirement accounts.  Many people believe that in this situation, they do not need two attorneys and both use the same lawyer.  Well, they can’t. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and the editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an excellent post on that blog entitled, "Real Estate as an Investment". To read the post, click here.

Mark touches on whether the home is a good investment given the current financial times.  This post is reminiscent of a post that I did about a year ago on whether it is prudent to retain the marital home in equitable distribution in this declining economy.  To see that post, click here. While another year has passed, the song appears to remain the same and Mark's post has interesting recent data on this issue.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this year, I blogged on the Houseman v. Dare case decided by the Appellate Division in a reported (precedential) opinion that held that  the special subjective worth of a pet to a party must be considered . Similarly, there were allegations there there was a specific agreement that one party would keep the dog, which was breached by the other party and Appellate Division remanded, as well, to consider whether there was an agreement. 

To see the prior post, click here.  To see the full text of the Appellate Division's decision, click here.

During the remand that was recently decided, the trial court,  in a somewhat Solomonic fashion, decided that the dog was to spend equal time with each party.  This seems to ignore the contract aspect of the case.  If more facts come out about this, we will update this post accordingly.

Per news reports, the trial judge stated that this was not a "custody arrangement" because, dogs are not children and do not get the same consideration. Despite the Appellate Division ruling, the judge reiterated that the dog was really no more than property.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, I blogged on the Appellate Division's reported (precedential) decision in Kay v. Kay.  To view my prior post, click here.  The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Certification and will be hearing arguments on this case during this term. 

To reiterate what this case is about, the Appellate Division held that when the estate of a spouse who died while an action for divorce is pending presents a claim for equitable relief related to marital property, the court may not refuse to consider the equities arising from the facts of that case solely on the ground that the estate may not assert equitable claims against the marital estate sounding in constructive trust, resulting trust, quasicontract or unjust enrichment. In that case, the husband died basically penniless and the wife had assets in excess of $650,000 at the time. 

As the family court is a court of equity, it will be interesting to see how this will come down.  When this decision comes down, we will post again about the final result.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Week after week I find myself reading decisions that deal with the imposition of sanctions against one party in a family law matter and the validity of these sanctions.  Oddly enough it seems as though the recent flood of sanction-related cases have to do with a party's aberrant behavior and the court's attempt to curb this behavior in the form of a financial punishment.

Sanctions are not a new method of coercion or punishment in the court system.  Non-family related matters often use sanctions and some may say do so more willingly that family part judges. 

As with anything in life, there are times when we are asked or have to do things that we simply don't want to do or perhaps don't feel like doing at that moment.  Well imagine that feeling mixed with the high emotions that often run in any family law matter.  The simple reality is that there are times when despite an attorney's best efforts, a client simply will not do what they are asked to do or what the court and rules require them to do.  This is not only an uncomfortable and perhaps frustrating position for the attorney but even more importantly, a precarious position for the client. 

When the courts are involved disobedience on what one may deem is 'not a big deal' or 'won't make a difference' can carry heavy consequences.  Most frequently a court will hold one party in violation of litigant's rights.  In simplest terms, that means that one party has violated the rights of the other party and the court is noting this violation in a formal record, by way of an Order memorializing the violation.  The next step or often coupled with a finding of a violation of litigant's rights is an award of counsel fees to the non-violating party.  Often as a deterrent to future non-compliance and perhaps even as a punishment, the court will order the non-complying party to pay either all or a portion of the other party's counsel fees.  Oftentimes, this is enough to get the misbehaving party's attention.  It may not be though and where it is not and all other remedies have proven fruitless, a court can and will order sanctions. 

Sanctions are often a monetary fine but tend to be more serious then a payment of counsel fees.  I have seen sanctions in the form of a daily payment for each day that a party is non-compliant.  I have also seen bench warrants issue for the arrest of a non-compliant party.  In family law matters, these two methods are used - but they are far from everyday occurrences, as court's many times give litigants way too much leeway even when orders are clearly violated.

So what's with all the fuss from the Appellate Division about these sanctions if they are used when everything else fails you ask?  Well the recently decided case that I'm referencing dealt with an award of future sanctions for future non-compliance of an order.  In the matter of Sheinbaum v. Campbell, A-3857-07T3, decided August 25, 2009, the court ordered a $500 sanction against a party for each future violation of a court Order.  In this highly litigious matter where several motions and emergent applications had been filed where the one party failed to comply with multiple Orders issued, the trial judge ordered the above future sanction in conjunction with counsel fees and other relief.

On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the ordering of a $500 sanction for each future violation was "premature".  In addition, because the lower court did not explain how it arrived at the the amount; why a smaller sanction would not have been effective; or consider the party's inability to pay, the Court could not uphold the Order as it stood.

The message - perhaps if the lower court had explained how it came to the $500 amount and justified this amount versus a smaller amount and considered the party's ability to pay, the sanction may be have been upheld.  That remains to be seen.  In navigating your way through the court process, keep in mind that your non-compliance could have serious monetary or other consequences.  Then again, maybe it wont. 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  I have previously blogged about frustrations by lawyers and litigant's alike about a court not enforcing their own orders, not granting counsel fees when enforcement motions are filed, etc.  Too many recalcitrant litigant's know this too and take advantage of the system, knowing it will cost the other party money to get what they are entitled to and that they may suffer a slap on the wrist.  As a young lawyer, I practiced in Colorado for about 2 years after practicing in NJ for a year.  After my brief experience in NJ, I was shocked dung my first contempt hearing when the dad was cuffed and sentenced to 6 months for contempt for failing to pay child support.  Attorneys in other states have commented to me that they are surprised how lax our courts are in enforcement matters.  That does not mean that a litigant should give up and not file enforcement motions.  As in the case the Sandra blogged about, eventually enough was enough.  That said, even when sanctions were imposed, they did not hold up.  ERIC S. SOLOTOFF

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Summer is over.  Kids are either back to school by now or will start by Tuesday.  The regular routine for most families will soon be back in full swing.

Another phenomena occurs this time of year.  A surge of people call for divorce consultations.  At first I thought it odd or coincidental.  Over the last several years, it has become commonplace.  There is a similar phenomena after New Year's Day. 

New Year's seems logical - New Year's resolutions.  Seemingly decisions are made to not be unhappy anymore and improve what one perceives to be a problem in their lives.  Back to school, however, does not have the same immediate "of course" as to why things occur this time of year.

I suspect that for most people, theirs kids are the most important thing. Since the kids are off and around during the summer, I suspect that many people do not want to start the process while their children are off, where long planned family vacations are scheduled, etc.  Once the routine is back it place, there are more distractions.

This is not to say that people do not start divorces at other times of the year.  Just that there are noticeable surges at these two times of years.

Though this is not to suggest that anyone should rush out to get a divorce, for those with questions about the process, our firm can answer any of your questions.  With our three offices in New Jersey, we cover the entire state.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It would be an understatement to say that these are trying financial times.  Real estate values are done, retirement assets are down, stock accounts are down, many people have lost jobs and many other feel lucky to still have their job, albeit earning less than they once did. 

In the past, the proceeds of the sale of of the marital home was a solution to many post-divorce cash flow issues, including down payments for new homes, getting a new car and paying the lawyers and experts in a case.  With the decline in property values, many people are facing situations with negative equity or much less equity to divide. 

What I learned in the last few years, and what I have found that many attorney and many accountants do not know is that a spouse receiving a share of the other spouses retirement account in divorce (IRAs and 401ks) can avoid the early withdrawal penalty if they take with withdrawal "incident to a divorce."  Many people think  and I used to be one of them, that if you liquidated retirements assets, you had to pay the 10% penalty. 

However, provisions of Internal Revenue Code sections 72, 401 & 408 (as well as the Treasury Regulations), allow a person to avoid the penalty if the take the cash at the time of the transfer.  If the transfer is in to an IRA account and then they try to get the cash, there will be penalty.  The tax in either instance still has to be paid. 

I suggest that parties can be creative with this to get money out for both of them, if they are cooperative, transfer the money to the non-tiled spouse which will then be divided, and they agree on a fair division of the taxes. 

In any event, if the rainy day is at the end of the divorce, retirement assets to be transferred incident to a divorce could mean money for that rainy day.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A basic question that people often ask at the outset of a divorce is, does the Court have the ability, or jurisdiction, to hear their case, especially when one spouse lives in a state other than New Jersey?

New Jersey statutory law seems clear, but the outcomes of a jurisdictional question over whether the Court can hear the cause of action for divorce are often based on highly fact-specific scenarios. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-10 states, in relevant part to this blog entry, that a New Jersey Court may have jurisdiction over a divorce when either party to the marriage has “become, and for at least 1 year next preceding the commencement of the action has continued to be, a bona fide resident” of New Jersey. As noted by the Appellate Division in the recently decided Boghosian v. Boghosian, an intricate and interesting unreported (not precedential) opinion decided on August 17, 2009, New Jersey Courts interpreting the language of this law have concluded that “bona fide resident” is the equivalent of “domiciliary” and that either party must actually be domiciled in this State. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously I have blogged on both the issue of sanctions assessed by a court against one party in a divorce or post divorce matter and also the obligation to contribute to the costs of a college education for a child and to what extent.

These issues are often addressed to the Appellate Court of New Jersey as in many family law matters they are topics hot for debate.  Most recently, the Appellate Division in the unpublished decision of Hikes v. Hikes, Decided August 13, 2009, Docket No. A-6642-06T2 addressed both the issue of sanctions and the payment of college for a child.

Sanctions may be requested by a party or  granted by a court on its own in a situation where one party acts in extreme bad faith or is non-compliant.  Sanctions can be viewed as a sort of punishment for that extreme bad faith or non-compliance.  This is especially so when the other party acts in good faith and is complaint. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A typical question that I hear at most initial consultations (and I suspect most other divorce attorneys hear the same question) , is "how do I get my spouse out of the house?"  The typical answer is that unless there is a new act of domestic violence, you cannot usually have a spouse removed from the house while the case is pending.

While in a perfect world, attorneys are not telling their client's to get restraining orders that are not legitimate, that seems naive.  Similarly, I am sure that badly motivated litigants, when hearing that a restraining order is necessary to get rid of their spouse, will do whatever it takes to get that restraining order, including provoking altercations and/or fabricating an incident.  I have, unfortunately seen or heard of this many times.  In fact, I often advise people to have a recorder with them at all times to protect themselves from a set-up.  In a recent case, the wife told the husband that she would no anything she could to get him out of the house.  I have unfortunately heard this a lot.  Aside from the obvious reason to get rid of a spouse, the other reason is that with the entry of a final restraining order comes a rebuttable presumption that the victim should get custody of the children.  Also, there is the practical advantage of gaining possession of the home and temporary custody of the children by virtue of a restraining order. 

Don't get me wrong.  Domestic violence, real domestic violence is a blight on our society and is in no way acceptable.  That is not what I am talking about.  I am talking about, at best, what the Appellate Division has called "domestic contretemps" (i.e. your garden variety argument) and at worst the set-up noted above. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One issue that has frequently arisen within recent months is what happens when a party is denied  oral argument on a motion.  In fact, we have blogged about it numerous times.  Those prior entries can be found by clicking here and here.  While the New Jersey Court Rules, 5:5-4 in particular, states that courts must "ordinarily grant rqeuests for oral argument on substantive and non-routine discovery motions," courts in certain counties have seemingly been more selective in granting oral argument of late.  This despite commentary in the Court Rules book following 5:5-4 stating that a "strong presumption" favoring oral argument on such motions exists.  In fact, this "presumption is cited over and over in appellate cases when this issue comes up.

On August 11, 2009, the Appellate Division released an unreported (not precedential) decision in O'Connor v. Drobner, which concluded that the trial court should have granted oral argument on the Wife's cross motion as to unreimbursed medical expenses, child support arrears, and private school expenses, rather than just address them in a supplemental statement of reasons. 

Interesting was the Appellate Division's focus on the Husband's need for oral argument on these issues, which went beyond the bounds of the relief sought in his own motion, even though such relief was sought by the Wife.  Specifically, the husband filed a motion on a limited, unrelated issue and did not seek oral argument.  The wife filed a cross motion and sought oral argument.  Given the Court Rules, the husband's ability to respond is limited by page limitations, however, in light of the wife's request for oral argument, he expected to have the ability to argue the issues raised in the wife's cross motion.  The matter was reversed and remanded to the trial court for that reason.

While trial courts may continue to deny oral argument, it appears that the Appellate Division will pulls things back when necessary by remanding and requiring oral argument within the confines of 5:5-4 and understanding that litigants cannot be deprived of the opportunity to fully present their case in court. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Trials are often won or lost based upon credibility determinations.  More often than not, cases are replete with he said/she said situations, or real differences of opinion as to almost every issue.  In an interesting unreported Appellate Decision released on July 15, 2009, credibility was critical.  As the author of this post was the successful trial and appellate attorney in this matter, I am fully familiar with the facts. 

Aside from being important at trial, credibility determinations cannot be overturned on appeal.  On top of that, as long as the Appellate Division finds that there was sufficient credible evidence in the record, the trial court opinion will be upheld.

In this case, the issues were more than he said she said. In the six months between when the wife said that she wanted to get divorced and the filing of the divorce complaint, the husband's law practice which had been growing and flourishing each year, suddenly became less profitable, if he was to be believed.  He was not believed.  Both the wife's testimony as well as her forensic accounting expert's testimony were deemed more credible. 

It was not just the wife's word that was so compelling.  Rather, at trial we produced thousands of pages of exhibits that supported the issues we presented.  It was not surprising, on appeal, that defendant argued that there was no evidence in the record - but to do so, he had to fail to comply with the rules and submit the trial evidence.  The wife was forced to remedy this. 

On almost every issue at trial, the husband was deemed not credible. This included findings of discrepancies in his Case Information Statement, violation of Court Orders, lack of credibility regarding the marital standard of living and his income, etc.  The Appellate Division's assessment of the husband was perhaps even more severe:

Finally, in an amended notice of appeal, defendant seeks review of an order entered on September 24, 2007 denying his motion for recusal of the trial judge. Defendant claims that "the trial [judge] made several inappropriate credibility determinations about defendant and his experts to justify rejecting the testimony and objective evidence presented at trial." After reviewing the record, we find no evidence of bias
against defendant. The court made credibility determinations based upon the evidence presented and defendant's demeanor and testimony. We give great deference to the trial court's credibility findings and will not upset them unless they are patently contrary to the credible evidence in the record. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999).

Moreover, if this had been a jury trial, the court could have given the "False in One, False in All" charge, instructing the jury that if it found that defendant had testified untruthfully in one instance, it could find his entire testimony to be untruthful. Since numerous discrepancies in defendant's financial information were brought to light during trial, the "False in One, False in All" principle applies.

The ramifications of not being truthful are rarely so clear.  We are obviously proud of the result obtained for our client in this case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since I began practicing in family law, there has been a great debate about whether when filing a cross motion in the family part, if the subject matter has to relate back to the subject matter of the motion. 

Motion practice in family law is very common.  Before a final judgment of divorce is entered motions are filed to address issues of support, custody, visitation, and a gamut of other issues that may arise in family court matters.  After a judgment of divorce is entered motions are filed to enforce or modify its terms.  The New Jersey Court Rules provide specific guidelines for filing deadlines, font, spacing, length of pages, service, etc. when filing a motion.  When one party files a motion seeking any type of relief, the other party has a right to respond, within a certain timeframe and has the choice to file a cross motion to seek their own affirmative relief.

So why the debate? The Rule regarding cross motions in family matters was unclear and interpreted all over the map by trial judges. 

I guess you could say that there were two sides of the coin.  On the one hand, requiring the subject matter of a cross motion to relate to the subject matter of a motion saves litigants time and money.  Money not only in filing fees but attorneys fees as well.  The attorney files a cross motion addressing the relief sought in the motion and requesting new relief.  The moving party has an opportunity to respond.  The attorney appears in court on one occasion to argue the merits of the application and the judge makes his/her decision.

On the other side of the coin is the argument that when a party files a cross motion seeking several prayers for relief entirely unrelated to the initial application, the moving party is deprived of the chance to fully respond due to the 10 page limit.  I have heard litigants and attorneys alike argue that they or their client have been prejudiced by the inability to fully respond to issues raised in a cross motion given the page limit.

The Appellate Division,in a recent unpublished opinion, has finally cleared up this issue.  In the matter of Marangos v. Marangos, decided June 4, 2009, A-2625-07T1, the Court tells us that Rule 1:6-3(b) requires that the subject matter of all cross motions relate back to the subject matter of the original motion.  This rule applies to motions filed in the family part. 

From a practice perspective, it will be interesting to see how judges will respond to this decision.  Although unpublished and therefore not binding, the decision is persuasive and some judges may follow its holding and require that the subject matter of all cross motions relate back to the subject matter of motions.  If not litigants may be required to file separate applications for the relief they seek.  Given the backlog in our courts due to the a number of judicial vacancies which remain, this new requirement could only add to the pile of motions that remain to be decided.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we were sitting in the Courthouse waiting for a hearing with the Court, a client once said to me, "you are too nice" after I had said "good morning" to our adversary. I guess from the perspective of a litigant, it seems odd that their attorney would actually have an amicable relationship with the "enemy". However, litigants need to understand that the conduct of their attorneys can impact the outcome of their case-- being unfriendly and belligerent certainly does not score points for the Judge and fighting for the sake of fighting totally detracts from what should be the most important focus of the divorce, the Litigant and the Litigant' s rights and needs.

I had an adversary several years ago who was extremely belligerent both in and out of the courtroom. While initially, this attorney's client believed that the attorney was "protecting his interest" and was being very "aggressive", as the case progressed, the client learned (the hard way) that such an approach did nothing but to deter from the real issues in the case while increasing the cost of the litigation.  Each case is supposed to be about the litigant and the important issues impacting the litigant's family and not about the "battle". Divorce litigants should hire attorneys for two reasons (1) the attorney knows the law and (2) the attorney will be objective.  If objectivity is lost, the other side will surely find benefit.

 

In short, your interests aren't being protected if the focus of your case is the fight.  "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting." The Art of War, Sun Tzu 600 B.C

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously I blogged on the issue of mediation and my skepticism of the process under certain circumstances.  This week there was a spirited discussion regarding the issue of mediation on the New Jersey State Bar Association Family Law Section listserve.  As a result, I thought it would be wise to highlight some of the issues again.

To frame the issue, the bigger debate surrounded the practice where a couple goes directly to a divorce mediator or some other trained mediator, without attorneys.  Some of the things that raised concern were as follows:

1. Some mediators are concerned not whether the mediation is fair, but rather, simply that the parties reached a settlement
2. Number 1 would be less troubling, except that many mediators are not telling the party receiving an unfair deal that it is unfair
3. Rather, apparently, for many mediator's, the phrase, "I think you should discuss this issue with a lawyer" is code for the resolution of this issue or this case is unfair.  However, people go to mediators to avoid lawyers and/or there is an undercurrent among mediators that divorce lawyers really are not looking out for the parties' interests.  Moreover, some parties think that if a mediator is not putting a stop to the mediation when something is unfair, that it must be fair.

There was also a concern that the imbalance of power in the marriage that naturally is creeping into the mediation is being ignored.  A perfect example is in a case where alimony, perhaps permanent alimony is a no brainer, yet the wife is willing to waive it in mediation.  Is anyone asking why?  Did the husband vow to never pay alimony?  Was there a threat to "go after custody" if a spouse sought alimony?  Did one spouse say "I spoke to a lawyer who said you weren't entitled to alimony" as a means to deter the other spouse from seeking it?  Was the other spouse given access to money to consult their own attorney?  I once represented a woman in a post-judgment matter whose husband would not give her money for the attorneys she wanted to see, only for mediation and then an attorney he hand selected for her to draft the Agreement.  It was not shocking that the "mediated agreement" included a waiver of alimony and the child going to school where the husband lives, when the child was of school age, despite the fact that the wife was the primary caregiver. 

I have also seen many a  complex matter where one party is pushing for mediation and there hasn't even been the most basic exchange of information at that time, much less formal discovery. I have even seen cases where the party with the documents will not provide them in advance of mediation and will only bring them to mediation and take them with him at the end. The better practice, and the better mediators require, parties to have attorneys involved from the start of the mediation so that both parties are fully informed about the law and the process and so that any imbalance of power can be rectified with an attorney protecting the weaker party.

There is no doubt that mediation and other methods of alternate dispute resolution can be a good thing.  That said, I have often seen mediations result in a "settlement", but one where the disadvantaged spouse got a "deal" that was neither fair nor reasonable, if not unconscionable. The problem in these cases is that often, once there is an "agreement", the person that got the great deal refuses to concede anything. Thus, a method meant to avoid litigation can often create litigation.

 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and the editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an excellent post on that blog entitled, "Sizing Up the Litigation:  An Examination of Cost vs. Benefit.  To read the post, click here.

The point of the post is that a litigant should choose their battles wisely, recognizing the potential costs. I often tell clients that it does not make sense to spend $2 to get $1, or for that matter, to spend $1 to get $1.  As Mark states, there are times to fight over principle.  A litigant needs to weigh when it makes sense to fight over principle, or choose to fight another day over something more important financially.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Especially now in the current economic climate, people are looking for ways to save money in discovery at trial. In fact, my partner, Jennifer Weisberg Millner recently blogged about this.

In an interesting recent Appellate Division case, not related to family law, but interesting nonetheless, the Appellate Division held that Wikipedia was too malleable to be reliable as evidence.  In that case, the plaintiff relied on a Wikipedia entry to help trace ownership of a credit card debt in order to establish standing to bring suit.  While the trial court allowed this, the decision was reversed by the Appellate Division. 

The rationale for the decision is that anyone can edit Wikipedia and the site itself contains a disclaimer that content may have been recently changed, altered or vandalized.  Thus, while the Rules of Evidence allow judge's to take judicial notice of specific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge capable of immediate determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, Wikipedia was determined to not be one of those sources. 

The lesson to be learned from case is that if you intend to rely on something from the internet, make sure that it is reliable and cannot be questioned.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this day and age, marriages involving people of different religious in no longer uncommon.  In some of these families, the parties choose one religion to raise the children in.  Sometimes even, one parent converts to the other's religion.  In other cases, the parties and the children observe both religions.

The question is what happens when the parties divorce?  What happens if one parent converts to another religion post-divorce and wants the children to similarly convert.  Though it seems as though this would be a complicated issue, in reality, the answer to the question is relatively easy. 

Specifically, under NJ law, the primary caretaker has the right to determine the religious upbringing of the children in their custody and courts will not interfere in that parent's decision regarding religious training for the children.  The policy behind this judicial reluctance to interfere with the religious training of children is that it is in the best interests of the children that the custodial parent be allowed to determine their religious upbringing. 

This principle was confirmed by the Appellate Division in a case where the parties were Protestant and raising the children in that religion before the divorce.  After the divorce, the mother converted herself and the children to Orthodox Judaism.  The mother, however, was not allowed to use the religion to interfere with the father's time with the children.  Moreover, the father could expose the children to his religion when they were with him but was not allowed to educate them in his religion.

Simply put, the custodial parent can determine the children's religion - the non-custodial parent can expose, but not formally educate the children in that parent's religion. 

The Court's have been clear that this has nothing to do with the preference of one religion over another. Rather, it is consistent with the law in general that gives custodial parents final say in decisions regarding children, even where there is joint legal custody, because that parent is presumed to know more about and be more in tune with what is in the children's best interests.  This principle has been applied to disputes ranging from religion to those involving elective medical procedures such as a nose job. 

While this issue does not come before the Court all that often, as noted above, the law is well settled in this area and pretty straight forward.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Last week I spoke at a seminar for family lawyers on the topic of discovery and experts in the current economic environment. As we wade through this financial crisis, the cost of a divorce, or other family litigation is yet another area in which we must look carefully at how we allocate our clients’ limited resources. 

The discovery phase of litigation is one in which a client can help his or her lawyer to effectively allocate limited resources simply by being organized and making sure that the attorney gets needed information early on in the process. For example, in every divorce, past bank statements and credit card bills will be requested. Financial institutions are charging significant fees in order to process requests for documents. On the other hand, an account holder can most often obtain statements as well as cancelled check images dating back eighteen months or longer. The simple act of asking your clients to obtain these statements early on can decrease costs. Similarly, if any records can be obtained electronically, this can save on copying costs (and save a few trees along the way).

 

Early and succinct communication with adversaries and experts are also a necessity. Often, litigants each jump to retain their own experts at the start of a case. Certainly, this is very often necessary. However, there are often cases in which a joint expert can perform the work. In some cases, where there is a significant valuation issue, it may make sense to have a joint expert perform the empirical work, and each litigant can hire their own expert to analyze the data.

Custody disputes are another area in which litigants often spend unnecessary amounts of fees. Sometimes, custody evaluations costing in the tens of thousands of dollars are conducted out of anger at the other party more than a bona fide concern about custody. In some counties in New Jersey, Custody Neutral Assessments (CNA’s) are being utilized. These are assessments by a licensed psychologist who has been appointed by the Court to spend four hours with the parties and if appropriate, the children, and provide the litigants with impressions about the custody/parenting time aspects of the case. In many instances, the litigants will read the impressions, get a sense of where the case is going and then will be able to resolve the case.

 

This is not an exhaustive list, but merely some thoughts on how an attorney can work with the client and be sensitive to the financial realities that we are experiencing. An open conversation with your attorney as well as a willingness to explore some innovative methods of obtaining information can, in many cases, relieve some of the pressure.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 We have previously blogged on the issues of counsel fee awards and a trial court's decision to grant or deny a party's request for oral argument on a pending motion.  Two of these prior postings can be found here and here.  Both of these issues framed the Appellate Division's recent unpublished opinion in Bove v. Bove, found here. 

The parties at issue were divorced on June 28, 2001 and three children were born of the marriage (two adult sons and a 16-year old daughter).  A supplemental Judgment of Divorce established that the Wife would have sole physical custody and the parties would share joint legal custody.  Additionally, the Husband was required to create trust funds for the children's college expenses and to be responsible for 80% of the daughter's college tuition.

The Wife sought to enroll the daughter in a private high school, informing the Husband that she could not pay for any part of private school tuition, that she was taking the daughter to open houses and that she asked for the Husband's "thoughts on the matter."  The Husband responded in a letter that he would not contribute to tuition prior to college and was displeased that the issue was broached with their daughter before him.  Nevertheless the Wife moved forward with the process and, when the Husband sought to have the Wife confirm in writing that she would not seek contribution from him for high school tuition, she refused.  The Wife also contended that the Husband was using the college trust funds for non-college expenses, as defined by the supplemental JOD, and the Husband contended that the Wife ignored, and then hedged, on his timely requests for vacation with the children. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The end of the Court year in  New Jersey in June 30th.  With that will come pressure, perhaps unnatural pressure, but pressure nontheless to resolve cases. 

While the fact that there are judicial shortages in many counties may provide relief, I suspect that it will do little to quell this rite of Spring.

As the legal system is very statistically driven, a court's performance is often measured in how many cases they clear, and more particularly, whether there is backlog (i.e. is the case too old for the case type that it is).  My undertanding is that a divorce case in in back log when it is over 1 year old. 

One tool that Court's use to clear more cases this time of year is to hold "blitz weeks."  During a blitz week, the oldest cases in a county are scheduled for trial and all of the family part judges clear their calendars to allegedly try cases during these weeks.  Whether or not cases actually get tried during blitz week is another story.  However, the threat of trial, along with the court's active assistance in trying to settle cases often clears many cases from the docket.

Also, in the cases that are naturally scheduled for trial during this time of year, adjournments become more difficult.  Regularly, multiple trials are scheduled for a judge for the same day.  The reason for this is that most cases settle or get adjourned so if only one case were scheduled, a judge could have open court time.  Often you will learn where you are on the list in terms of which is the oldest case and can get a sense as to whether the trial date is a real one.  In fact, usually the first and second trial date are not "real" dates, but rather dates when a court will try to get you to settle. 

That said, at this time of year, if you want to try to adjourn these dates, it becomes more difficult, with the hope that you will settle.  There is an old joke that goes, what is the easiest way to get an adjournment, tell the court you are ready for trial.  In reality, it works in the reverse.  That is, when you seek an adjourment of a trial date, courts often deny this expecting that it will help force a settlement. 

In my practice, if I appear for a trial date, I am prepared for trial.  I learned early on that the best way to be prepared to settle a case it to be prepared to try a case.  That way you are negotiating from a position of strength and very often, the other side really isn't prepared for trial  - making favorable settlement terms more likely.

In any event, if your case is getting close to a year old, expect pressure from the Court to get it done before June 30th.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and the editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an interesting post on that blog entitled Mediate, Arbitrate, Negotiate:  What's a Client to Do?" To read the post, click here.

Mark's blog entry goes through the options of alternate dispute resolution.  Like Pennsylvania, in New Jersey, there is very limited review of an arbitrator's decision.  However, parties can agree to an appeals type process.  However, that appeal would be to a trial court, not the Appellate Division as we recently learned in the reported case of Hoogoboom.  Moreover, in New Jersey, you can mediate, but you cannot arbitrate custody and parenting time disputes.

Also, in my experience, arbitrations are very much like trials with the arbitrator serving as the judge.  While you can agree to relax the rules of evidence and the arbitrator, under the arbitration act can choose to relax the rules, most often unless people agree to proceed in some kind of summary format, an arbitration proceeds in the same manner as a trial in a Court would.

That said, the benefits of an arbitration noted in Mark's post are the same.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I authored and released a Family Law Alert regarding the new Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings issued by the American Psychological Association Issues. To view a PDF version of the alert, click here.  The full text of the alert is as follows:

The American Psychological Association (APA) notes that parties resolve child custody issues amongst themselves in 90 percent of the cases. When parties cannot resolve custody and visitation issues (called “parenting time” in New Jersey) amongst themselves or after a court’s early intervention program, the next step is to have a child custody evaluation performed by a forensic psychologist. In some cases, the court will appoint this expert. In others, the parties may agree upon a joint expert. In bitterly contested cases, parties often have their own custody expert - and there may also be a court appointed expert.

In 1994, the APA developed Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings. The APA issued updated guidelines effective February 21, 2009, which are effective for the next 10 years. These Guidelines consist of 14 individual guidelines that are meant to be aspirational in nature, and not mandatory. Rather, the Guidelines are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and a high level of practice by psychologists. The Guidelines were not intended to be exhaustive nor replace the judgment of the psychologist. That said, they provide fodder for cross-examination during a custody trial if the expert is not aware of the Guidelines and/or fails to follow them. A rationale and application is provided for each of the following 14 Guidelines:

1.  The purpose of the evaluation is to assist in determining the psychological best interests of the child. Since the ultimate standard in deciding a custody case is “the best interests of the children,” the Guidelines reinforce that the psychologist should be focusing on the psychological best interests of the children, which is what the Court expects. The Guidelines encourage the expert to weigh and incorporate family dynamics and interactions; cultural and environmental variables; relevant challenges and aptitudes for all examined parties; and the child’s educational, physical and psychological needs.

Litigants going through the process of a custody evaluation should provide the expert with all relevant information regarding these factors. In reviewing the expert report, make sure that the expert has addressed them all. If it is your own expert, you may want to inquire why these issues are not included. If it is a neutral or adverse expert, it is a potential issue to be raised on cross examination. With the neutral expert, you may not want to wait until trial. If any of these factors are important enough to impact the final recommendation, you may want to ask the expert to reconsider his or her recommendation in light of this information.
 

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Though we have blogged about this issue in the past, as it is particularly topical given the article in today's NJ Biz that New Jersey area (including the New York Metropolitan area) job losses are outpacing the national addresses. 

As noted on prior job posts. the standard for modifying support is that there has to be a substantial and continuing change of circumstances.  Moreover, in order to get relief, you must document your job search efforts to show the court that you have made a good faith effort to find a new job.

When a client loses their job, the following things should be done:

1. Retain all documentation from the employer showing that the job loss was involuntary.  If there is a severance agreement and any other documentation, that should be maintained as well as the final paycheck showing the severance received (if paid in a lump sum).
2. Keep a detailed log of all efforts made to find new employment with as much information as possible (who you contacted, when you contacted them, what they said, etc.)  If the communications were in writing, keep copies of all emails, resume's, cover letters, rejection letters, if you applied for a job on lie (i.e. Monster.com), confirmation that you applied for work.
3. If the problem is industry wide, any newspaper, trade or other articles or documentation showing that the industry has contracted or is having problems.

The question arises regarding what you do when offered a job that is not consistent with your prior earnings.  If you have been out or work for a short time, this creates a tough decision about whether to take this job or wait.  If you do take this job, my suggestion early after losing a job, my suggestion would be to continue your job search if at all possible.

If you have been out or work for some time and you have made a good faith job search, while possible, I find it hard to believe that a court would penalize someone for taking work - especially in this economy.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New Jersey Appellate Division has held that an application seeking to set aside a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) under Rule 4:50-1 of the New Jersey Rules of Court should be granted "sparingly."  It was this very type of application that formed the basis of the Appellate Division's recent opinion in Heald v. Heald, found here.

The parties were married for 28 years and had 4 children before the Final Judgment of Divorce was entered in November 2006.  They had separated in 2005 and, for a significant period of time, negotiated the terms ultimately encompassed in a PSA, executed in April 2006.  Notably, the parties agreed to use the Husband's 2004 income to determine his support obligations.  The PSA also contained language that the parties were knowingly waiving their right to discovery regarding each other's income and assets.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Apple Sulit-Peralejo, a partner in our Atlantic City office blogged earlier today regarding counsel fees and bad faith. 

Often counsel fee decisions come down to findings of bad faith and the case law certainly is replete with references to bad faith.  However, when Court Rule 5:3-5(c) was revised about 10 years ago, the standard was relaxed such that bad faith was no longer necessary, but rather, the "reasonableness" of the positions became the standard.  Or did it?  Reading the cases, such as the one cited in Apple's post. a lot of time was spent on the issue of bad faith.

That said, when you see large counsel fee awards, it is usually after a trial.  In my experience, though few cases are tried (about 1 to 2%), when cases get tried, it is because one party's conduct or the positions that the took were so absurd that a finding of bad faith is almost inevitable.

Earlier this week, after a 5 day trial that took place over the better part of a year, my client was awarded $40,000 in legal fees.  In this case, she was the parent of primary residence in the parties' divorce agreement.  She told her ex-husband that she was going to move to Monmouth County from Hudson County with the parties' child, to live with her fiance'.  The husband made a motion for custody, essentially seeking to preclude our client from moving with her child.  The case law is pretty clear that the custodial parent can move within the state of NJ.  After we cited that in our brief in opposition to the motion, he concocted a new argument that he was the de facto custodial parent and the trial followed on this issue.  During the trial we were able to prove that his claim was bogus and that for a very short period of time post divorce when he had the child more than 50% of the time, it was because he violated the Agreement and refused to return the child.  This conduct as well as his lies were simply unreasonable.  Similarly, the Court found that he was actively trying to remove our client from the child's life.  This too was unreasonable.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and the editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an interesting post on that blog entitled "A Test of Character And A Savings In Cost." To read the post, click here.

Unfortunately, the scenario Mark wrote about is all too common in divorce cases.  Parents often put their children in the middle of financial issues.  How many times to do we hear, as I did as the child of divorce, to "ask your father for it."  Or "I have no money", "I can't afford it, ask your father" or worse yet "your father doesn't give me enough money for this."  I am sure that there are other variations or permutations.  What about when a parent expects to exercise their parenting time (visitation) on the regular days, but there are parties, outings, events, etc. planned for that time.  Does that parent become the bad guy when the child can't go?  Can the other parent do something to make it "alright" for the child to miss an event or do they inflame things by saying "it's your father's fault you cannot go." 

Sadly, these things are typical in divorces.  The people who do it (divorce) right, try to limit this.  The ones that don't risk doing damage to their kids and running up their legal fees.  At the worst end of the spectrum, the conduct can result in parental alienation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and the editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an excellent post on that blog entitled "Stock Option Developments."  To read the post, click here.

Stock options have become a large part of executive compensation over the last few decades.  Moreover, they have become common additional/incentive compensation even for non executives who work for large public companies.  We have had to deal with the issue of options both in terms of the division of them in equitable distribution and as a component of income for determining alimony and child support.

Mark's post raises interesting food for thought regarding the issue of the re-casting and/or re-pricing of options, post-complaint. 

Stay tuned for updates as the law develops regarding this topic.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and the editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an excellent post on that blog entitled "A Reminder That the World of Bankruptcy Has Changed.   To see the full post, click here.

The post reminds us how the 2005 changes to the bankruptcy code affects divorce settlements.  Specifically, divorce settlements are no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy.  Under the prior Act, payments in the nature of support were non-dischargeable but equitable distribution could be dischargeable.  The court would apply a balancing test as to the debtor and former spouse.  That balancing test is now gone.

Very often we still see clauses in property settlement agreements proclaiming that the obligations are not dischargeable in bankruptcy or "are in the nature of support."  Those clauses do not seem necessary anymore. 

Given the current economy, this issue could be one we see a lot.  That said, bankruptcy does not seem like it will provide relief to former spouses.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jane Lessner, a partner in our Philadelphia office, wrote an interesting post entitled "How Many are Too Many" on the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog.  The addresses legal issues raised by "Octomom" type situations. To see the full post, click here.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

David Rasner a partner in our Philadelphia office and Co-Chair of the firm's Family Law practice group, wrote an interesting  post entitled "What Should I Do" on the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog.  The post discusses the decision to get a divorce, threats some spouses make when the other mentions a divorce are related issues. The post also concludes that parties should try to settle because a court is simply not the best place to resolve these issues - that the parties with counsel should do so out of court if possible.

To read the full post, click here.

EDITOR"S NOTE:  The final sentiment above is a corollary to the theme in a post that I did last week entitled "Trial Is An Expensive Way to Get a Pound of Flesh."  To see that post, click here.  ERIC SOLOTOFF

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 12, 2009, the Appellate Division issued a reported decision in the case if Sweeney v. Sweeney..  RBC Dain Rauscher Inc was also involved in the appeal.  To view the case, click here.

The parties were married in 1991.  In 1999, the wife sold a premarital business and building for $555,000 and kept the proceeds as her separate property.  She invested the proceeds with RBC, signing a standard agreement containing an arbitration clause in the event of a dispute.  The husband was a broker at and he became the broker for the wife's account. He was already
the broker for the couple's joint account and for two accounts held by RBC on behalf of the couple's minor children.

The parties divorce in 2004.  Their divorce agreement does not mention any of the parties' brokerage accounts, but it contains a standard mutual release clause in which the
parties give up any and all claims that each might have against the other by reason of any matter.

In 2006, the wife filed with NASD (now FINRA) a Statement of Claim for Securities Arbitration against RBC, alleging, among other things, mismanagement of her accounts, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty to supervise. In response, RBC filed in the family court where the divorce was heard a  post-judgment motion to intervene in the divorce action and to stay arbitration. RBC contended that as a result of the Judgment of Divorce, her arbitration claims were barred by res judicata and by the entire controversy doctrine. RBC also claimed that it is a third-party beneficiary of the Judgment of Divorce and that  the release of the husband released RBC. The Wife filed a notice of cross-motion to compel arbitration.

Both the trial court and Appellate Division ruled in the wife's favor.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When I have an initial interview with a client, one of the common questions that comes up is, “how should I get in touch with you?” Because I am at times up and working early in the morning, or out of the office in court during the day and catching up at night, a common response is, “e-mail.” As we continue to move into the age of technology; when our President has a Blackberry, e-mail is increasingly supplementing phone calls as a way for me to communicate with clients.

Yet there are a couple of important things that have to be considered when communicating electronically with a lawyer. I had previously discussed some of these issues in a previous blog. For instance, it is important to remember that AOL, and other non-web based e-mail servers may place copies of your sent and received e-mails directly onto your hard drive. Therefore, any person in the household who has access to your computer also may also have access to that you may have believed were confidential communications to your attorney. Thus, I always suggest that client’s use a web-based e-mail such as yahoo, gmail or hotmail.

 

Another issue that comes up is the fact that many clients utilize their work computers and e-mail address to communicate with their legal counsel. A unreported non-matrimonial case was recently decided, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, in which an employee had used her company issued laptop to e-mail her lawyer. Even though she utilized her web-based e-mail address, a temporary file was still stored on the hard drive. Thus, the court found that the employee had waived the attorney client privilege when she used the company’s hardware. Important in that case was the fact that the employee handbook specifically provided that e-mail messages were part of the company’s business records. Also in this particular case, the employee had used the company lap top to communicate with her lawyer about the terms of her resignation from the company.

 

Notwithstanding the particular facts of this case, it is surely the tip of the iceberg floating our way. This is an area of the law in which the technology is moving faster than we can respond. It is imperative that you know what files will be stored on the hard drive of the computer that you are using when conveying information to your lawyer. The lesson to be learned here is that when you have critical confidential information to get to your lawyer, pick up the phone and give me a call.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 10, 2009, the Appellate Division issued a precedential (reported) decision on the issue of the possession of a dog in the case of Houseman v. Dare.  To see the full text of the case, click here.

The parties were together for 13 years.  In 1999 they purchased a house together.  In 2000, they got engaged (but never married).  In 2003, they purchased a pedigree dog for $1,500.  Both parties were listed as the owners on the papers filed with the American Kennel Club.

 

 

In May 2006 Dare decided to end his relationship with Houseman. At that time, he wanted to stay in the house and purchase her interest in the property for $45,000 which was what he represented half of the equity to be. In June 2006, she signed a deed transferring her interest in the house to him.  When she vacated the residence in July 2006, Houseman took the dog and its paraphernalia with her. 

There seems to be little dispute that there was an oral agreement that Houseman was going to take the dog with her as her own when the parties separated.  However, thereafter, she allowed Dare to visit with the dog.  On one occasion in 2007 after watching the dog while Houseman was on vacation, he refused to give the dog back and the lawsuit ensued wherein she sought specific performance of their agreement that she keep the dog.  

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I just completed a 10 or so day trial (really a binding arbitration).  Why did it take so long?  Were there complicated valuation issues? No.  Complicated alimony issues? No.  Custody issues?  No - custody and parenting time were already settled. 

The answer in large part was one party's bad faith and need to extract a pound of flesh.  He did not get his pound of flesh and while we await the decision, I doubt he will receive satisfaction there either?

Some examples of the nonsense.  The case started in 2006 when real estate was at its height and the marital home was appraised by a joint appraiser in early 2007.  The case lingered and trial did not start until the fall 2009.  Despite the fact that the law is clear that homes are valued at the date of distribution, the husband opposed a new appraisal.  Why - as every knows, real estate values were going down.  Since he knew that the wife wanted to keep the house, he was trying to use this to his advantage.  Due to the delays, the wife had to get an updated appraisal in January 2008 when the was originally supposed to occur.  She had to get another one in August 2008 before the trial started.  The husband held out and opposed using the joint appraiser, costing the parties more money for experts and then wasting a day trying the issue of the value of the home.

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

David Rasner a partner in our Philadelphia office and Co-Chair of the firm;s Family Law practice group, wrote an excellent post entitled "Pre-Divorce Planning" on the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog.

The post addresses selecting a lawyer, gathering documents, understanding your finances, determining your goals and priorities, compiling a list of questions to ask at the initial interview, etc.

To read the full text of David's Blog entry, click here.
 

EDITOR'S NOTE:   I like to tell people to gather and make copies of all of the relevant documents they can find (for example tax returns, bank records, credit card records, investment and retirement account records, records regarding major asset purchases, business records if a spouse owns a business),  Once they have the copies, the originals should be returned and the copies kept off site.  It is not unusual for documents to "disappear" once a divorce becomes imminent.

Similarly, despite the obvious and mounting tension, this is the time to ratchet down the angry interactions with the other spouse.   The reason for this is that one of the first questions that is often asked at a consultation is how can I get my spouse to move out.  The answer is typically that unless there is domestic violence, you cannot remove a spouse.  Many people often abuse the domestic violence laws, claiming harassment (where it didn't really occur or was just an argument), to get the other party out of the house.  I often advise people to avoid confrontations, to not raise their voice and to retreat.  A person may also want to purchase a digital recorder to protect themselves from a false claim of harassment.  ERIC SOLOTOFF 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, in the unreported decision of Pacifico v. Pacifico, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s ruling establishing that an ex-wife provided sufficient proof to overcome a presumption established by the New Jersey Supreme Court that “current market value as of the time of the triggering event” should govern the value to which the ex-wife could exercise her option to purchase her ex-husband’s one-half interest in the marital home. 

The parties executed a Property Settlement Agreement in December 1996, which was incorporated into the final judgment of divorce. The PSA provided that the marital residence was to be sold upon the youngest child reaching age 19 and that, at that time, the ex-wife had the first option (and then the ex-husband) to buy-out the former spouse’s interest in the home. If neither party wanted to exercise said option, it was to be sold. Once the youngest child turned 19, the ex-husband filed an application to compel the listing and sale of the property. The ex-wife then filed a cross-motion to buy out the ex-husband’s interest at the value determined by a broker’s market analysis in 1996 – long before the ex-wife application. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 3, 2009, my colleague, Katherine R. Sookhoo, an associate in or Philadelphia office,  wrote a very interesting article on cohabitation in our Pennsylvania Family Blog entitled For Love or Money.  I found the blog interesting for two reasons.  First, the rule of law between Pennsylvania and New Jersey are significantly different.  Second, although different, the difficulty litigants have in either jurisdiction in proving that their ex-spouses are cohabiting is the same. 

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Divorce Code, divorce litigants are not entitled to alimony if they cohabit after they have been divorced.   However, in Pennsylvania, in cases resolved by way of Property Settlement Agreement, the Pennsylvania Divorce Code provision applies only if the agreement specifically states that cohabitation terminates alimony.

Unlike Pennsylvania, New Jersey statutory law does not prohibit receipt of alimony payments based upon cohabitation.  In New Jersey, while cohabitation may be considered a change in financial circumstances that permits a review and/or a modification of alimony, the fact that an ex-spouse cohabits does not necessarily mean that alimony will be terminated.  Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999). 

While Pennsylvania and New Jersey have differing laws regarding cohabitation, both jurisdictions are plagued with the uncertainty of how the Court's define "cohabitation".  In Pennsylvania, there has to be a showing of a financial, social and sexual link, by sharing the same residences.  Miller v. Miller, 508 A.2d 550 (1986).  In New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court  noted that “to constitute cohabitation, the relationship must be shown to be serious and lasting” and that  “a mere romantic, casual or social relationship is not sufficient to justify enforcement of settlement agreement provision terminating alimony upon dependent spouse's cohabitation; such a provision must be predicated on a relationship of cohabitation that can be shown to have stability, permanency, and mutual interdependence” Id.  

Therefore, does cohabitation exist if your ex-spouse and her paramour switch back and forth in sleeping in their respective residences?  If they stay together only on weekends?  If they have resided together for a month?  How about a year?  What if their finances are totally separate? In either Pennsylvania or New Jersey, the answers to those questions are not entirely clear and Courts determine the issues on a case-by-case basis.

Because there is no exact definition of "cohabitation", proving that cohabitation exists may be tricky and requires a thorough analysis of the circumstances before raising the issue in Court.  If a litigant is going to allege cohabitation, before doing so, they should make sure that factually and legally, they have enough to get beyond the "grey" area because (1) if you are going to proceed in Court, you want to prevail; and (2) you don't want to go to Court, lose, and give your ex-spouse the ability to further avoid termination of alimony now that they know your on to the cohabitation.   

 EDITOR'S NOTE:  Apple is absolutely correct regarding the grey areas. That said, there have been a number of unreported Appellate Division decisions over the last year or so that have been more permissive in what amounts to cohabitation.  Specifically, many of the cases suggest that staying together every single night may not be required, and that the location is not entirely important (ie. some nights at her house and some nights at his house.) 

However, once some semblance of cohabitation is shown, unless the divorce Agreement specifically calls for the termination of alimony, and most don't, the next issue to address is the financial interdependence between the former spouse and cohabitant.  Put another way, cohabitation is not enough to terminate alimony in the typical case.  You have to look at the financial impact of the cohabitation.  Eric S. Solotoff

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 We all hear that in bad economies, divorce filings traditionally decrease.   There are many reasons for this, many of which are a subject for another day. Yet a prevalent concern that many of my potential clients express is the fear of the next step financially. Starting over is difficult and indeed overwhelming in the most amicable divorce where the parties both have substantial income. When the money is tight, is adds an additional layer of stress.  Some people mistakenly believe that they simply cannot afford to divorce their spouse.

One of my first questions to a new client is to find out if they have an accountant and financial planner of their own that they trust. If they do not, having them find one is near the top of my “to do” list for that client.   This is because, in most cases, there will be an equitable distribution of assets that have to be invested, whether it be a new home, a new IRA, or a new investment account. My client has to plan for his or her future early on and this may mean very different planning that occurred during the marriage. Even when there is a distribution of debt, there must be consideration of how to best pay that debT. Is a home equity loan appropriate? Should the debt be paid from assets that may not have as much capital gains given the current economic state? What are the tax consequences? These are all issues that need to be discussed with the client and financial specialists.

 

Another concern for many clients is purchasing a new home. For some, it may be the first time they are purchasing a home. Clients are concerned about obtaining a mortgage in these difficult economic times. It seems as if forces are colliding against some clients. For instance, we have all heard that banks are only lending to people with excellent credit scores. Yet during a divorce, many people experience financial stress and their credit rating suffers, often because of the other spouse. So what to do? First, many people do not realize that there are banks that are lending and there are mortgage brokers who cater to people who find themselves in a divorce. Also, rates are down and there are incentives for first time homebuyers. Clients already have most of their financial information ready as a result of the divorce. There are people and banks out there. It is just a bit tougher to find them in these times.

 

At the end of the day, my client has to make the decision that is best for his or her situation.  But I have to make sure that the client has to tools to make the right decision. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I published a blog post entitled "No Hearing Required for Serial Modification Motions." To view that post, click here.  However, released on February 9th was the unreported decision in the case of Cordero v. Mora with a different result. To view the full text of the case, click here.

This case involves the former Major League baseball player, Will Cordero, who was seeking, once again, to reduce his child support obligation for the child of his first marriage.  He played with the Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Pittsburgh Pirates, Montreal Expos, Florida Marlins and Washington Nationals in the major league for fourteen years. He made a substantial amount
of money during his career. In some seasons he made as much as $6,000,000.  He now claims to be out of baseball, having last played in the Major Leagues in 2005.  He participated in spring training in 2007 with the Mets in their minor league camp but was cut.

Over the years, Mr. Cordero has filed many application to reduce his support. In 2005 resulted in a reduction of child support from $1300 to $800 weekly. The  following year, he sought and obtained another reduction based on a substantial salary reduction.  from $800 to $500 weekly. On appeal,
he argued he should have received a greater reduction.  In June 2007, that argument was rejected by the Appellate DIvision.  However, just prior thereto, the ex-wife filed an enforcement motion and Mr. Cordero filed another motion seeking a reduction.  The judge granted the motion to enforce the existing order. In addition, the judge ordered him to pay $11,999 in arrears within thirty days and denied his motion for a further reduction. The judge noted that plaintiff provided limited and spotty financial information. Based on the information before the court, the judge concluded that plaintiff had the ability to pay the arrears. He also found that plaintiff produced extremely limited information about his efforts to obtain employment and incomplete information about assets that may generate unearned income or can be liquidated to meet his on-going child support obligation. The judge was particularly concerned that plaintiff had not provided an accounting of the millions of dollars he had earned during his professional baseball career.

 

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Litigants who get caught lying about their income in their filed submissions to the Court subject themselves not only to denial of their request for relief from the Family Part Judge but they also open the door for problems with the IRS, the State of New Jersey Division of Taxation, the Prosecutor’s office and the Social Security Administration. 

In the recent unpublished Appellate Division decision of Lucci v. Lucci, Defendant ex-husband filed an application in 2008 to permanently terminate his alimony obligation on the basis that his income significantly decreased. Notably, between the time of the divorce in 2000 and the time of the application, Ex-Husband had been successful in reducing his alimony obligation on two separate occasions. First, by consent in 2004, he was able to reduce alimony from $300 to $150 per week. Then, by consent in 2005, he was able to suspend his alimony because he was “unemployed”.  In 2008, he was seeking to permanently terminate his alimony obligation.

Ex-husband stated in sworn Certifications filed with the Court in the 2005 and the 2008 proceedings that he was laid-off of work, went through periods of unemployment and was finally able to obtain employment with much lower compensation. The Ex-Husband also certified that during his periods of unemployment, he received unemployment benefits. 

 

In opposition to the application, Ex-Wife presented the Court with a sworn Certification from a Company that was never disclosed by Ex-Husband.  The Company stated that it had employed Ex-Husband including the period during which Ex-Husband received unemployment benefits, that Ex-Husband misrepresented his employment status to the Court, and that he had earned income in an amount comparable to that which he earned when the Order of support subject to the Motion was filed. The Company further advised the Court that Ex-Husband provided two conflicting Social Security numbers to the Company. Finally, the Company advised that the income reported on Ex-Husband’s tax returns did not include his income from the Company.

 

Ex-Husband’s attorney did not know about Ex-Husband’s employment with the Company.

Not only did the Court deny Ex-Husband’s request to terminate alimony but the Court also wrote a letter to the IRS, State Division of Taxation, the Sussex County Prosecutor and the Social Security Administration.   Moreover, the Court granted Ex-Wife’s request to reinstate alimony at $300 per week effective in 2004 and granted her counsel fees. Despite the fact that Ex-husband was reported to the authorities for what the Court perceived to be intentionally wrongful conduct, the Ex-Husband had the gall to appeal the decision to the Appellate Division.

 

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial Court’s decision with the exception of the effective date of the reinstatement of alimony. The Appellate Division noted that while it was clear from Ex-Husband’s filed submissions to the Court in 2005 that he had provided misleading information, it was unclear whether he provided misleading information in 2004. If Ex-Husband did not provide misleading information in 2004, the Appellate Division noted that the effective date of the reinstatement should be in 2005 when Ex-Husband was required to pay $150 per week in alimony. The Appellate Division directed the trial court to determine the issue after further Court proceedings.

 

The moral of the story is if you get caught lying in submissions to the Court for which you certified under oath that your statements were true, be prepared to not only pay the consequences to the other litigant but you may also have to pay a hefty price to authorities. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 28, 2009, the Appellate Division issued a reported (precedential) opinion in Kay v. Kay that held that when the estate of a spouse who died while an action for divorce is pending presents a claim for equitable relief related to marital property, the court may not refuse to consider the equities arising from the facts of that case solely on the ground that the estate may not assert equitable claims against the marital estate sounding in constructive trust, resulting trust, quasicontract or unjust enrichment.  This case rejects the holding in Krudzlo v. Krudzlo, a reported trial court opinion from 1990.  To read the full opinion, click here.

The basic rule is that a divorce case abates and no equitable distribution can be had when a spouse dies during the pendency of divorce.  However, there is a Supreme Court case called Carr v. Carr that created equitable remedies for a surviving spouse that would otherwise get nothing where the assets were all held by the other spouse and the rights to equitable distribution and an elective share are unavailable under the law.  This case provided a remedy for what was called the "black hole."

The Krudzlo case held that the estate of a dying spouse could not assert claims for equitable relief against a surviving spouse.

In Kay, there husband died.  At the the time of his death, he had limited assets in his name, insufficient even to pay his legal fees and burial expenses.  On the other hand, it was asserted that the wife had more than $650,000 in assets.  It was also asserted that the wife dissipated marital assets, diverting them to her own name and her daughter.

Given that the court's seek fairness and equity, the Appellate Division held that it was inappropriate to have a blanket rule preventing the estate from making equitable claims.  The Court did not decide the underlying merits of the claim, however. The estate will have the ability to make a claim to prevent the unjust enrichment of the surviving spouse.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Early on in a case, the lawyer and client will have to determine what experts will be necesary to resolve a case either for settlement or trial.  In fact, at the first Case Management Conference, the uniform Case Management Order requires that you identify the types of experts you need and how they are going to be paid for. 

What is an expert and why do we need them?  Per the Rules of Evidence, "If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."  Simply put, an expert is a tool to help determine a fact.  Experts provide information that the parties cannot generally provide themselves.

What kind of experts are used in these cases?  The following are some examples:

• Forensic accountants to value busineses, determine actual income, trace income and assets (including tracing premarital assets), to provide lifestyle analysis, to provide cash flow reports based upon proposed alimony and child support scenarios and a variety of other financial related issues,
• Business valuation experts (sometimes they are not accountants)
• Experts to value stock options or other exployee benefits - often but not always accountants
• custody evaluators - usually forensic psychologists, but occasionally forsensic psychiatrists and social workers, who will give an opinion of custody and parenting time
• educational experts - to determine which school or school district is better, what program is better, public vs. private school issues, educations issues regarding children with special needs
• employability experts  - to determine what someone can and/or should be earning.
• pension appraisers - usually actuaries, to determine the value of a pension, parse out premarital shares of 401ks, and draft Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
• Real estate appraisers
• personal property appraisers
• jewelry appraisers
• art, coin, antique appraisers
• medical doctors - to assess disabilities or sometimes personal injuries
• handwriting experts
• computer forensics
• Interpreting services (for documents in foreign languages)
• experts to value intellectual property

There are probably many other types of experts.  This list does not even include other professionals that may help the parties, but probably not testify, like financial planners, stock brokers, insurance agents, parent coordinators, reunification therapists or for that matter any treating therapists.

Over the years, we have worked with most or all of these types of experts as the need has arisen.  Should an issue requiring an expert come up in one of our client's cases, we are well equipped to handle it.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton (Chester County), Pennsylvania office and the editor of our Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, wrote an interesting post entitled "Property Settlement Agreements: Be Careful What You Sign Up For", on that blog. 

To read the full post, click here.

The post discusses how the Bankruptcy laws impact on divorce matters.  The bottom line is that while a debtor may be able to avoid all kinds of debts in a bankruptcy proceeding,  if your obligation is to a spouse or your kids, the rules are different and those obligations are going to survive your bankruptcy. The bottom line is that you should make an agreement that is realistic and reasonable, that you can actually pay and not one that you hope you will be able to pay.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My clients often ask “will I get the same thing that my neighbor received in his divorce” or “why can’t my ex share in transportation-- my cousin has to share with her ex” or “my friend earns so much more than me and his support is much lower than mine”. I always tell my clients that as a rule, don’t compare your situation with the situation of someone else. 

While the same laws concerning family law actions are applied to each case, each case is different and therefore, the outcomes are different. It is true that many cases have similar factual patterns but most of the time they are not exactly the same. Using one of the examples above, while someone may be earning more but paying less in support than another litigant, it could be that the ex-spouse of the litigant had other available resources generating income like an inheritance or the ex-spouse could have received more of the family assets as a trade-off for less support. While it is very tempting to compare your situation with that of another person, keep in mind that more likely than not, you are not getting the full story from that person. Also, sometimes misery loves company and it could be that the only part of the story you are getting is what the other person painfully remembers the most.

Also important to note is that in New Jersey, the statutory factors for an award of support or for a custody determination are numerous. The Courts apply each factor to the given situation and then completes a balancing of all of the factors prior to rendering a determination. It is in this application of the facts that results in different determinations among cases. Moreover, litigants should also recognize that Judges are vested with a certain level of discretion in weighing the factors which is yet another reason why the outcome of cases differ. 

Notably, if one was to review a significant amount of family law decisions published by the Court concerning the same exact issue (child support, alimony, custody, etc.), it is very unlikely that a person would find a decision with the same exact fact pattern as their given situation. 

In short, save yourself some frustration and make it a rule not to compare your family situation with that of someone else during a litigation and focus on your facts with your attorney.   After all, as I tell my clients, it is your facts that we will be presenting to the Court and not the facts of your neighbor, cousin or friend.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  i once had a client who used to say that no one could believe how much temporary support he was paying and that it was the most anyone ever heard of.  My answer was, "Do they make a million dollars a year like you? No.  Do they make a half a million a year?  No  Do they make $250,000 per year?  No.  The moral is that he was talking to people whose finances had no similarity to his and reacting to their shock.   That goes exactly to Apple's point - while friends and relatives are good for support and a shoulder to lean/cry on, they are not usually a good source of legal advice or information.           ERIC S. SOLOTOFF

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Welcome to Fox Rothschild's new and improved New Jersey Family Legal Blog.  You will now receive information and perspective on New Jersey family law issues from the family law attorneys in our firm throughout the state.

The contributors to this blog will be Eric S. Solotoff, Robert A. Epstein and Sandra C. Fava from the Roseland office; Jennifer Weisberg Millner from the Princeton office; and Apple Sulit-Peralejo from the Atlantic City office. The New Jersey attorneys from Fox Rothschild's Family Law Group handle matrimonial and family law matters throughout the entire State of New Jersey. We hope that we can impart to the reader useful information based upon our collective experience.

We plan to provide information on on topics such as alimony, child support, custody, parenting time, divorce, equitable distribution, prenuptial agreements, domestic violence, grandparents visitation, and offer useful tips for readers. This blog can be used as a resource for individuals with New Jersey family law questions and advisors whose clients may encounter family law issues. If there are any topics that you would like us to blog on, do not hesitate to contact us.

We intend on making this an excellent resource for individuals with New Jersey family law questions and advisors whose clients may encounter family law issues. We hope that you will check back often. If there are any topics that you would like us to blog on, do not hesitate to send me an email.  In addition, you can subscribe to our blog.  By doing so, you will get an email when new content is posted.  To subscribe, follow the instructions on the right hand side of the screen.

 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am currently preparing for trial in a case in which there is a special needs child. These cases bring another layer of topics to the already crowded plate. No divorce is easy, and when children and custody issues are involved it is more difficult. However, when a special needs child is involved, there are complex issues which arise and which must rise above the parent’s anger, emotions, and anxiety, of the process.  

 First, one primary issue is that of the expenses associated with the child. If the child is receiving governmental assistance, it is imperative that a divorcing parent consult with counsel that is familiar with special needs trusts as well as special education. What is it they say about “the best laid plans???” Parents trying to plan for the future with the best of intentions may create now, a situation which will later impede the child’s ability to qualify for and receive benefits. That having been said, it is critical to anticipate, to the extent possible, the current and short to mid term custodial and financial needs of the child so that an appropriate parenting schedule and amount of support can be set in order to avoid an expensive trip back to the courthouse later in order to make modifications or to obtain an increase in support.

 

Another issue which needs to be addressed is the bona fide day time needs of the child. I was involved in a case several years ago in which the father thankfully realized that due to the severity of his son’s problems, the mother, who was otherwise employable and capable of supporting herself, needed to be available to take care of the child during the day. I have had other cases in which a parent has essentially tried to “exploit” a child’s otherwise minimal disability in order convince a judge that employment outside of the home was impossible. In the vast majority of cases that are filed in New Jersey, both parents have, or will presumably have to work outside the home. In a case when there is a special needs it is imperative to accurately assess the true needs of the child. This may often involve the retention of an expert who is familiar with the particular disability of the child in question.

 

Divorce is stressful under the most “ideal: situation. However, when the parties have a special needs child, it is critical to make sure the parents are considering all aspects which carefully consider the present and future needs of the child.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was reading an unreported Appellate Division case released today and gasped when I read the following sentence, " ...Moreover, the permanent alimony figure was negotiated and presumably contemplated defendant's retirement since he was fifty-three years old when he appeared before Judge Piscal on September 19, 2000."  To read the full case, click here.

While the facts in this case may have justified the denial of the former husband's motion to modify alimony, that statement struck a chord.  In this case, the parties were married for 32 years, a long term marriage by any standards.  However, by current standards, we often start talking about long term marriages being 15 years or more and if alimony is appropriate, the discussion is about permanent alimony begins.  Moreover, although there is a well known Appellate Division case authored by Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Long suggesting that it is better practice to negotiate the issue of retirement, the reality in practice is that it is rare that the party receiving alimony will concede the issue of retirement in the agreement.  Often it is just too speculative.  At best, you may get a recognition that there can be an application for a review upon retirement.

Given that you typically cannot get any concession about retirement and there is no doubt that this was a permanent alimony case, is the above quoted statement a fair or a realistic view?  I don't think so. 

Assume a long term marriage where all assets, including reti